Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2010

File:Flatirons Winter Sunrise edit 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 13:34:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jesse Varner - uploaded by AzaToth - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 13:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 13:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous! Steven Walling 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 17:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW! Very nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportToo good! --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and amazing lighting. -- Sdgjake (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it! Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice light sure, but the snow looks over-exposed in some areas. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The snow is generally white, and "white" does not mean "overexposed" IMO. Very nice picture.--Jebulon (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Been there, nice shot of the Flatirons.--Sandahl (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fresco of Apollo.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 19:52:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cody escadron delta -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice picture, but ISO 720 is IMO too high. You need to use a tripod if there is not enough light. Also the size is a bit small for a work of art. Yann (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't got a tripod at the moment. Cody escadron delta (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hyla intermedia Oleron.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 15:05:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cpas-91 - uploaded by Caps-91 - nominated by Caps-91 -- Caps-91 (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Caps-91 (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but way too low dof. --mathias K 16:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF too low, unappealing flash lighting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to THFSW - MPF (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Women in tribal village, Umaria district, India.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2010 at 13:26:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fajardoalacant (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have too few portraits in FP, methinks. This is a good one. Steven Walling 16:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - limited depth of focus, lack of 'wow' factor - MPF (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very few people visit this village, and it is quite difficult to take pictures of women, as they do not have much public activities. Yann (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's an portrait, of course there is just a little dof! And thats good! The composition is also very nice. The only point of critique is that disturbing rest of another robe in the corner down left. But per Steven: We have too few portraits in FP, and this is a good one! --mathias K 17:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed beautiful facial expression, but the top crop (head of woman in the background looking into the camera) is too tight, and the things going on in the left bottom corner are ambiguous.--Elekhh (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per MPF. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 10:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice portrait photographed in the country we have not nearly enough FP images from.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the use of the colors and the curved shapes around the women's faces, the equilibrium of the whole, the facial expressions completing each other. --Zyephyrus (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pic!
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:20100726 Kalamitsi Beach Ionian Sea Lefkada island Greece.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2010 at 13:11:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ I still believe that Greece is the most beautiful country in the world. --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 17:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is very noisy IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A polarizer filter has been used and the sky was darker.. during a mask, giving more light to the sky the noise appeared. I find minor reason to vote oppose.. this is a little noise and minor thing comparing to the overall quality which is high. Ggia (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but there is not only a little noise. This pic for example has a assimilable situation in the sky and nearly no noise. --mathias K 09:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors but sky noise spoil it. --Mile (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afrid mathias is right. The wave crashes are very intrusive here. --Korman (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not bad, but too, too noisy. Trance Light (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the most annoying thing in this photograph is the barrel distortion that you can observe in the horizon (between sea-sky). but this distortion can be corrected. Ggia (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Ggia (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SNCB Class20 R04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2010 at 20:57:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think some perspective correction might be needed. Besides, there's too much empty space. Wolf (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the need for perspective correction: all the vertical lines are properly vertical. The amount of 'empty space' is a matter of taste... -- MJJR (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is very good and illustrative. However I miss a bit of wow factor. There are several minor issues: I'd have preferred a 3:2 version with less soil and sky. Then there is that building in the background that is a bit disturbing. And the cut off train. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Airbus Wing 01798.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2010 at 05:33:43 (UTC)

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose window residues, quality so-so, blue colour cast, tilt, ... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like kaʁstn. Too much blue... --Chmee2 (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much too blue, some minor exposure problems, picture wrong rotated (possibly to avoid even worse tilt). All things corrected in File:Airbus Wing 01798 changed.jpg. Feel free to do whatever you want to do with. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beloeil castel 1 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2010 at 12:28:17 (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) 12:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ change vote, see below really, really sorry about that oppose cause the picture is really nice. The Nikon D3S is a great camera and it is hard to believe that this picture is shot with F2.8 and ISO 3600. But why? Doesn't packed your tripod? This could be such an amazing picture but sadly the noise is visible, pretty less for iso3600, but visible. The sharpness over the whole scene could be better and the oe areas on the right side of the building are also not so nice. I really like the colors and the composition with the mirror effect but the technical problems make me oppose. Sorry, mathias K 14:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tripod in the water that does not work well ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats true! I thought something like that cause of the very short focal length used on a full frame camera. Wasn't it possible to take the picture from the shore? I've checked the location on Google Earth and it looks like it would be possible, but I don't know the real situation there... bg mathias K 16:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral thinking about it again and I think it is too good for oppose. The situation (taking the pic from a boat) is really hard and the reasult is pretty good! Greetings mathias K 10:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I do not see much noise here. --King of Hearts (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great shot indeed. I do not see any notable noise here. --Cayambe (talk) 08:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, noise, colors. --Mile (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good picture Cody escadron delta (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Mile - MPF (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see little noise, and the colours are great. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Noise? What noise? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautifull picture, i don't see any noise --Croucrou (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb Rastrojo _(D•ES) 14:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 10:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original and rare view. Very good to me.--Jebulon (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noise levels are fine. I like the blue light. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Taj Mahal, Agra, India.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2010 at 14:47:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just a reminder of the two active nominations rule, currently you have three. --Elekhh (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! And not too many tourists on the picture. Could benefit from a subtle shadows/highlights or levels adjustment. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not skilled enough to do that. Could you help?Yann (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A perfect image in every way. Perfect perspective on the Taj Mahal, excellent colours and exposure. --Korman (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Doucus (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sandahl (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

I removed four black spots (birds? dust spots?) in the sky, made the white balance cooler, lightened, and increased the saturation. See what you guys think. -- King of Hearts (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks too saturated to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the best version in my opinion. --99of9 (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks to King of Hearts for his help. Yann (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doesn't look over-saturated to me. Steven Walling 22:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit2[edit]

Same as edit1, but saturation kept the same as original. -- King of Hearts (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks to King of Hearts for his help. Yann (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version is the best. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like all versions --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 22:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The best of the series IMO. --Cayambe (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one. The sky could use some de-noising, though. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is probably the best version - great image. Hekerui (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Taj_Mahal,_Agra,_India_edit2.jpg

File:Hydrolagus alberti.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2010 at 12:22:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by [1] - uploaded by Citron - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it correct that the fish was shot from the bottom? Strange position … Not entirely sharp, imho. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this drawing, the fish isn't shot from the bottom. Yes not entirely sharp, but very high quality compensates? --Citron (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, excuse my English please. Of course not directly from the bottom but obliquely from below. You can see more parts of the bottom than of the top. The scheme is a clear cross section while the photo is not. Its quality is okay but all in all I think that the fish could have been better photographed. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - scan from slide with the inevitable spots and scratches. Also shows a dead, stuffed specimen, not even in a very life-like pose. - MPF (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citron (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giant's Causeway (14).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2010 at 15:59:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Chmee2 -- Chmee2 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and the light despite some possible issues (is the horizon really horizontal?) I inserted it in the fr:WP article when I saw it posted on QIC page some weeks ago :-) --Myrabella (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice, I love this place! --mathias K 09:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hermetia illucens Black soldier fly edit1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2010 at 07:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it needs a crop at the bottom. Yann (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 23:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice sharp focus on the fly. --Korman (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Korman --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Serengeti Topi3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2010 at 17:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting motion shot. -- King of Hearts (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Wrong framing, the poor thing looks caged. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality could have been better, but the image has "wow". Wrong framing? Well, maybe, but one could feel the speed, no caged animal could run with such speed --Mbz1 (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ as per Mbz1. Yann (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the other version. Yann (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alves. --mathias K 17:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The usual motion shot problems of blurring/focus, plus I dislike the portrait framing. Landscape would give a better sense of movement. Steven Walling 17:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alves and Steven. --Elekhh (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me it's the portrait framing that sets this image apart from classic compositions. You get a good view of the animal but also of the surrounding habitat. But if you prefer a landscape version here you go. --Ikiwaner (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - definitely prefer the landscape format below - MPF (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not against the non-classic composition, but the branch perfectly aligned with its head makes it ambiguous. --Elekhh (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Landscape version[edit]

Info votes for the landscape version below this line
Support much better imo! Maybe a little thight on the left side, but very much better than the portrait-format. --mathias K 14:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, better than above. Yann (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still major blurring and focus problems. Steven Walling 16:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes slighty blurred, but try doing better with a fast-galloping wild animal! Just a tiny bit of motion blur also helps convery the impression of speed. - MPF (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 05:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Serengeti_Topi5.jpg

File:Side Ruines, Turkey.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2010 at 10:22:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Trance Light - uploaded by Trance Light - nominated by Trance Light -- Осенняя мгла (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Осенняя мгла (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Threshold formation.gif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2010 at 13:24:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Saumitra R Mehrotra & Gerhard Klimeck - uploaded by Beatnik8983 - nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JovianEye (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It may be useful and hard to get but it's not an excellent graphic. It seems there is a window hidden in the middle. And the watermark on the right is ugly and pixelated. Last but not least I do not understand it. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not what I would call an excellent presentation of scientific data. It is a cheap looking screenshot, cluttered with widgets, a watermark, remnants of a second window. The transistor structure is not indicated, scales/labels are missing on the second plot, the height scale is not well defined and very hard to make out. Image description lacks basic information. --Dschwen (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single support vote is stating a reason. Interesting. --Dschwen (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to give a reason if it's obvious why you're supporting. I supported because it has high EV. I didn't think anyone would have such a hard time figuring that out that they would get suspicious. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is an easy thing to claim and even easier to debunk by giving detailed criticism of the illustration as I did above. Looking sciency is not the same as having high EV. --Dschwen (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it's not the same thing, but this one has both (used on 14 articles on 6 different languages). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't even pass as a QI with that watermark. --Ikiwaner (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the concerns brought up above - I would think that the graphics could be better, but if not, then the other imperfections that this image has could certainly not be present in the graphic (e.g. oodly-positioned watermark with a non-background-color filling for the "B", the windows fragment in between, etc.). ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wild flowers and errosion in Pacifica 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 15:22:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry Mila, the idea is great, it reminds me at your octupus and lighthouse picture. But sadly there are several stitching errors (maybe caused by the different focus points) over the whole image and the distorted houses are also not so nice. The composition and colours are really good, but maybe a single shot with a short focal length and less errors would be better. bg mathias K 16:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like this picture, unfortunately, Leviathan is right. There are many blurred areas in the photo. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least some of the blurred area are not due to stitching errors, originals have the same problem. This was one hard to take image. I've no problems with your opposes, so, nothing to be sorry about

. I wanted to show the contrast between the spring flowers and disaster. Both were caused by rains. Of course the erosion was also due to waves action.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose support comment The High Fin Sperm Whale. Ggia (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you specify which island this was one and possibly geocode? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an island. It is mainland US, w:Pacifica, California. I added geolocation, and please do not tell me that you are going to oppose the image anyway. Just kidding

--Mbz1 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed blurred areas. Please take another look.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice composition with contrast between flowers and ocean --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stay too many siwiched error --Croucrou (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will try to fix some later today.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed again.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Still a few blurring problems, but I think it's good enough now. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Abstain I'm sorry this image was already a Quality Image Candidate in april 2010,15, and was declined after a consensual review if I'm not wrong. I don't see here any improvement justifying a promotion as "Featured Picture"...--Jebulon (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an absolutely different version that should be reviewed again. The stitching errors were fixed. If you see some, please point them out, but do not oppose because an old image was opposed. --Mbz1 (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was only for the complete information of reviewers... I remove my oppose because if I remember well I didn't vote nor oppose at the time, but I cannot support because, as I said, "I don't see here any improvement justifying a promotion as "Featured Picture" ". Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely welcome to oppose, but there are many improvements. All stitching errors were fixed.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully think it would have been fair to say that it is another version of a previous nomination in QIC...--Jebulon (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but QI got opposed because it had stitching errors. The new image does not.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ggia (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wasserschloss Mespelbrunn, 6.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 16:40:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~{Oppose}~~ - overdone perspective correction leads to image appearing to fan outwards toward the top - MPF (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC) New edit better, thanks! vote changed MPF (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, ich habe mal eine neue Version drübergeladen. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good in every way. No overdone perspective correction. Strong support. -- MJJR (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support New version looks very good to me. --Petritap (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks like a very good picture with good exposure even though I don't understand the German description. --Korman (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Doucus (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good exposure? I see severe overexposure of the sky and also slightly of the facade. The composition is good. --Ikiwaner (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 05:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That image is definitely too blue. I've uploaded a corrected version: File:Wasserschloss_Mespelbrunn,_6_changed.jpg. Feel free to do whatever you want to do with. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC) P. S.: EXIF data would be nice.[reply]
Die andere Version gefällt mir sehr gut. Aber kann man das Bild bei so vielen Votings noch austauschen? EXIF ist nun drinnen. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternativen kann man immer ergänzen. Und wenn die mehr Stimmen hat als das Original, wird sie und nicht die andere Fassung exzellent. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, dass wusste ich nicht, danke. Habe es auch gleich mal bei der Nahebrücke so gemacht. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support: overexposure a bit disturbing, but all in all a very good picture --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikiwaner --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1[edit]

Support —DerHexer (Talk) 20:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose maybe more evenly colours, but more overexposure parts --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Wasserschloss_Mespelbrunn,_6.jpg

File:Leaf & light.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2010 at 16:15:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Trachemys - uploaded by Trachemys - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trachemys (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unfortunately the bright lights and the spider are burned. Sting (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced the front light. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little or none illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anas rubripes PM3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2010 at 21:28:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice shot of a creature in the wild.--Sandahl (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice sharp foto of the creature with no human intrusion. Looks like the bird is very friendly to people. Wish all birds were like this. --Korman (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain~~ Nice. But composition issue: the shadow of the tail is unfortunately cropped. --Jebulon (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info New crop with tail shadow --Cephas (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then Support. Sorry, Cephas !--Jebulon (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quack, quack. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Manavgat Waterfull.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 22:44:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Trance Light - uploaded by Trance Light - nominated by Trance Light -- Осенняя мгла (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Осенняя мгла (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - nice to seee a good crisp capture of a waterfall with just about the right amount of motion blur to match what the eye sees (not one of those dreadful blurred long-exposure travesties that get posted so often) - MPF (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MPF, there is a {{Strong support}} template. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Be nice if it were geocoded though. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Easy done, from google earth - MPF (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose imo white parts partially overexposured. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've uploaded a derivate with removed overexposure: File:Manavgat_Waterfull_by_DerHexer.jpg. Feel free to do whatever you want to do with. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you very much. :-) Trance Light (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will you nominate the alternative version? Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, alternative version better, but I don`t know how I can nominate the alternative version. :-( I think alternative version can be a second version of base image. Trance Light (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1[edit]

Support —DerHexer (Talk) 00:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure about the white balance. The parts closest to the viewer, the trees and the sky look a bit reddish to me. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tarentola mauritanica Calabria.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2010 at 12:30:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mystère Martin - uploaded by Mystère Martin - nominated by Mystère Martin -- Mystère Martin (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mystère Martin (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose compostion, situation, dof, only one side of the head and one foot is visible --mathias K 14:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, composition is not fixable here. Have the same view as Mathias. --Korman (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What does not fit in the composition? What does not fit in the situation? What does not fit in the depth of field (or depth of focus?)? Why only one side of the head and foot are not well? I don't understand...--Mystère Martin (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Спас Колев (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of the composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNo scientific interest, poor quality photography depth of field too low.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe low DOF is a desired effect. Why is it not well? --Mystère Martin (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2010 Fires in South America.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2010 at 10:33:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jeff Schmaltz (NASA) - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Widespread fires throughout South America. The smoke from the fires extends over the entire 2,500-kilometre length of the image. Notice how the smoke is contained by the Andes.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Interesting image. What is the meaning of the red rectangles? bamse (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fires are outlined in red. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shoes of the victims of Majdanek.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2010 at 12:42:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Von.grzanka (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- as nominator Von.grzanka (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm not sure if the description is correct. I'm not very good at English, so help would be very appreciated.
Oppose This is a good motive. But your photo is far away from a featured picture, I'm sorry. I write my reasons with my ideas for improvement in German, because my English isn't good enough to say it in English. I contact my personal translater User:Dschwen :-) in promise that he will render my test. Weder die Komposition noch die technische Ausführung können überzeugen. Der Blickwinkel und die Perspektive sind gut, aber rechts und links hast du viel zu wenig Platz gelassen. Die Schuhe sind teilweise abgeschnitten, das sollte nicht sein. Dann solltest du beim nächsten Mal, falls es eines gibt, ein Stativ benutzen. Denn um das Foto aus der Hand ohne Verwacklung zu schießen, hat deine Kamera für die benötigte kurze Belichtungszeit ISO 800 und eine weit geöffnete Blende gewählt. Der ISO-Wert verursacht ein sichtbares Farbrauschen im Hintergund, aber das Hauptproblem liegt bei der großen Blende von f/3,5. Bei so einem langstreckten Motiv will man einen möglichst großen Schärfebereich haben, um das Motiv möglichst großflächig scharf anzuschauen und nicht nur den klienen, anfokussierten Bereich einigermaßen scharf sehen. Mit einer Blende von zum Beispiel f/13 oder kleiner und einem ISO-Wert von 100 hätte sich vielleicht die Belichtungszeit stark erhört, was auf einem Stativ kein Problem gewesen wäre und zusammen mit mehr Platz rechts und links vielleicht zu einem exzellenten Bild geführt hätte. Vielleicht kannst du das Motiv ja nochmal ablichten? Grüße --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Liberal translation: Neither composition nor technical aspects convince me. Angle and perspective are good, but you left way too little room on the left and right sides of the frame. The shoes are partially cut off; that should be avoided. Next time you should - if available - use a tripod. To take the picture hand-held without camera shake your camera chose ISO 800 and an open aperture to get the necessary short exposure time. The ISO setting caused visible chroma noise in the background, but the main problem is the large aperture of f/3.5. For a subject with this much depth you'll want a larger depth of field to get a large portion of the subject in good focus and not just the small region where your autofocus locked in. With an aperture of f/13 or smaller (?) and an ISO value of 100 the exposure time would have been much longer, which would not have been an issue when using a tripod, and together with more room on the sides it might have led to a featured picture. --Dschwen (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apatura eat frog 2010 G2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 07:08:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Purple Emperors (Apatura iris) and Lesser Purple Emperors (Apatura ilia) eat moisture on the body died European brown frog (Rana temporaria). Ukraine.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual and interesting.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting...not the typical flies-swarming-around-a-roadkilled-squirrel that I see. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wicked ! --Muhammad (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done.--Jebulon (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Спас Колев (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nasty subject imo ;) But amazing what a quality you get out of this compact camera... Wow! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've never seen so many butterflies at once, technically well done. --Ikiwaner (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Xysticus sp qtl1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2010 at 12:17:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info A Crab Spider lurking on Marsh Cranesbill. It is not possible to determine the exact species of this spider without a closer examination of the genitals. --Quartl (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose good picture with nice composition and colours. but for my taste the crab spider is just too tiny on this picture. There are nearly no details visible. A higher magnification (maybe like here) would be much better. Sorry! bg mathias K 14:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How if you think about it the other way round: "flower with spider"? --Elekhh(talk) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm good question! I think it would be better... --mathias K 09:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per mathias K.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevit (talk • contribs)
Support In addition to the composition and coloring, which I think are great, I personally don't mind the spider being a bit too small - it's detailed enough for me, and I think the view is very artistic and pleasing. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was actually thinking about nominating it, I find it outstanding. --Elekhh (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Mathias. Steven Walling 23:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see it as the picture of a flower with a spider, not the reverse. Nice colours. Don't really understand the somewhat wide crop at the left side. --Cayambe (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bergbaumaschine.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2010 at 09:06:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Powerhauer - uploaded by Powerhauer - nominated by Powerhauer -- Powerhauer (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Powerhauer (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose again an overdone hdr with no additional value to a normal photo. --mathias K 12:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the quality really not good enough. Sorry but the picture is not really sharp, some parts are very noisy, and really strange colours. I would like to see a picture without doing any hdr... Gruß mathias K 14:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lambis crocata 2010 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2010 at 15:48:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by George Chernilevsky - uploaded by George Chernilevsky - nominated by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shell, nice work. --Myrabella (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very illustrative, good colours, scale adds value. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Park Slunj 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2010 at 17:54:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MarioCRO - uploaded by MarioCRO - nominated by MarioCRO -- MarioCRO (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MarioCRO (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quickly glancing at it, there's a lot of noticeable overexposure, primarily looking at the sky and the sidewalk. The sides should also probably be sliced off and made straight. Not as major and more of a personal opinion, but I'm also not a huge fan of the large shadow caused by the tree in the foreground; it's kind of distracting and doesn't contrast well with the brighter parts of the image. Nice image, but not FP-worthy in my opinion, sorry. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too overexposed --Mr. Mario (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but technical issues, mainly heavy chromatic aberration on both sides (large violet fringes). Sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to fix some issues raised above in File:Park_Slunj_2010_changed.jpg. Feel free to do whatever you want to do with. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes it is a panorama but it's still a panorama made of individual touristy p&s snapshots.--Avala (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the composition is not too bad, but the pic is unsharp and has hard CA. The light was also very bad. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serengeti Elefantenbulle.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2010 at 17:38:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful image. I tried to lighten some dark parts of it in File:Serengeti Elefantenbulle by DerHexer.jpg. Feel free to do whatever you want to do with. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like that image too. However the original has already slightly brightened shadows as you can see in the metadata. I try avoid bigger adjustments on shadows/highlights. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But I seem to be blind because I cannot see it in the metadata. Where is it situated? Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

crs:FillLight, watch the raw xml. --Ikiwaner (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent job ! --Trachemys (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! --Citron (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Really beautiful. Yes, no doubt about the fact it is a male. And it looks... very... how to say it... happy (?) --Jebulon (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support again a very nice work. --mathias K 09:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Happy elephant is happy. :) Von.grzanka (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support classic and simple.--Avala (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paris Las Vegas Eiffel Tower 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2010 at 03:11:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by hsuc - uploaded by hsuc - nominated by hsuc -- Hsuc (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hsuc (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Copyrighted sculpture with no freedom of panorama in USA? Is the pic legitimate on commons? MPF (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this also true for the copy of the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas or only for the original one in Paris? --AngMoKio (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose imo lack of compositon, way too much black areas for my taste. --mathias K 09:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral very good quality, but poor composition (street latern, too much dark parts (one, two, three hours earlier would be better I think), some other disturbing things) :( --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alte Nahebrücke, Bad Kreuznach, 5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2010 at 10:07:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC) New version is better. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice composition but much too bright, also too blue. Some parts also underexposured. Changed all in File:Alte_Nahebrücke,_Bad_Kreuznach,_5_changed.jpg. Feel free to do whatever you want to do with. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leider verstehe ich nicht alles. In den anderen Bildversionen wurde bemängelt, dass es viel zu dunkel sei. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deutsch: Eine gute Komposition, das Bild ist aber generell zu hell (siehe Histogramm; vor allem am Himmel und den Häusern merklich zu sehen), außerdem hat es einen Blaustich (erkennbar am blauen Dunst, der das ganze Bild überzieht und vor allem an den Häusern zu sehen ist). Einige Teile waren außerdem unterbelichtet. Das alles habe ich im Foto korrigiert. Mach damit, was du denkst, man damit machen sollte. (Zum Beispiel als Alternative aufstellen und noch ein paar Tage es kandidieren zu lassen, denn das Motiv ist meines Erachtens wirklich featureable, nur die Farben stimmen nicht wirklich. Ach ja, die Grundhelligkeit habe ich zwar herabgesetzt, die dunklen Stellen [und ausschließlich diese] aufgehellt.)
—DerHexer (Talk) 20:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jetzt sehe ich erst überhaupt deine bearbeitete Version. Danke dafür! Habe zunächst deine Antwort in Google übersetzt. Die Version gefällt mir eigentlich ausgesprochen gut. Einzig der Himmel ist dort jetzt meine ich stärker verrauscht wie bei meiner Version. Dennoch würde ich, wenn du nichts dagegen hast, das Kandidatenbild hier austauschen. Bis jetzt hat erst Berthold Werner gevotet, den man dann darauf ansprechen könnte. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Himmel ist nun entrauscht, hab nochmal einen Tick heller gemacht. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1[edit]

Support —DerHexer (Talk) 21:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Besser. Die Farben erinnern mich an 1980er Ansichtskarten. (Colors look like a 1980th postcard) --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grjótagjá caves in summer 2009 (2).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2010 at 14:09:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Chmee2 -- Chmee2 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality cave pictures are rare. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per HFSW Steven Walling 23:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, looks good. I've uploaded a derivate with reduced over- and underexposure: File:Grjótagjá_caves_in_summer_2009_(2)_by_DerHexer.jpg. Feel free to do whatever you want to do with. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bright beautiful colours. Looks like the right amount of exposure. --Korman (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the shadows add to the mood. I prefer the original version. --99of9 (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful; thin mist in the background adds to the athmosphere. --Myrabella (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome caves, awesome reflection and the blue is nice. Everything is sharp, composition is good. --Aktron (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is really bad, some rocks are unsharp, some overexposed. Also that green thing that looks as graffiti on the right hand side spoils the image for me. Sorry. The crop in the right lower corner should be fixed.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Corner is fixed, thx for notice --Chmee2 (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, looks good but to low quality. Trance Light (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but per Mila. Quality could be much better. --mathias K 09:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpless. --Mile (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tlusťa (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness could be much better, also over-exposure in the lower right corner, some CA in the left part of the image. Sorry. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. --Calibas (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:M4A4 cutaway.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2010 at 17:49:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Malyszkz - uploaded by Malyszkz - nominated by Malyszkz -- Malyszkz (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Malyszkz (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beatiful! One small remark - no. 22, transmission shaft as I assume, is drawn in a different style (lack of outline, shading) from other details, which makes it kind of incompatible with the rest of image. The same goes for the gun ammunition, however it's less visible for it.
- I think it's supposed to indicate that it's not "sliced" and sort of protrudes from the image in the direction of the viewer. And I like it. And just out of curiosity, if someone could explain: what's that yellow-golden stuff in the back? Wolf (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some kind of fan? Engine cooler? I'm not an expert in tank building ;) Masur (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pattonic support. Wolf (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC) [don't ask me what pattonic means, I just know it fits a Sherman tank][reply]
Support Like it. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Спас Колев (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JovianEye (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great drawing. --Lošmi (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Baie de Quiberon Carnac.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2010 at 10:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Myrabella - uploaded by Myrabella - nominated by Myrabella -- Myrabella (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Myrabella (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see something featured in the quality and composition, sorry --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same reasons as above -- Any1s (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to choose a better one next time. --Myrabella (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

File:Curtiss Jenny Płock.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2010 at 09:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Łukasz Golowanow a.k.a. Wolf (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nicely captured. With a slight regret for the unattractive foliage at the lower right. --Cayambe (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aircraft is not entirely sharp (yes I know it's very hard to do), crop not optimal (chimney cut off, boat to the left cut off, trees at the bottom right also cut off), distracting background (ship yard) --Kabelleger (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dull colours.--Avala (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alhambra in the evening.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2010 at 11:54:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Jebulon (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator -- Jebulon (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is a little bit tilt.. Ggia (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done fixed.--Jebulon (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 18:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful --Schnobby (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded a new version of the file.. even you fixed the tilt.. it was still a little tilt.. and I fixed. Ggia (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support little more sharpness and resolution would be great, but the light is awesome! --mathias K 09:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice view in a beautiful light. --Myrabella (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doucus (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As mathias -- MJJR (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice evening photo of the Alhambra. Consistent colours. --Korman (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 18:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice light and composition, too noisy and soft. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose light is good, but the quality isn't it --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gaivota - Portosín-5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2010 at 14:15:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez - nominated by -- Ikiwaner (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, still beautiful image although the second foot is not sharp. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that I can vote--Lmbuga (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice quality, little dof problems on the head, but overall very good! --mathias K 09:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hm, nice composition, but I think it's pixelized, isn't it? Maybe a bit upscaled? Or maybe I'm wrong? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been "up"scalled or "down"scalled (I don't know if it's pixelized, I can upload another version with less sharp if you want. I have the RAW file).--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC) 16:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a juvenile, please add this to the file description. A geotag is also on the wish list. :-) --Cayambe (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The localization is: -8.948750495910645 (longitud/lonxitude), 42.761948588616605 (latitud/latitude), 29T 504193 4734381 (UTM), 29T NH03 (MGRS). ~~I will try to incorporate the data, I hope to be able~~ I would try to incorporate the data, but I do not know: I don't remember--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You can use geolocator for this. Lycaon (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Molothrus ater immature CT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2010 at 21:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this one! the quality is high and the grasshopper (?) leg is a nice gimmick... ;-) --mathias K 09:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support not the best of your photos, but a really good one --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per mathias--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although a less disturbing bokeh would have been nice -- Any1s (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Balearica regulorum 1 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2010 at 11:56:22 (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) 11:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice!--Citron (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the small noise is no propblem; very good work! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --mathias K 15:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a dust spot at the very upper right, which should be removed. --Cayambe (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dust spot removed ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the shadows of the feathers on the head --Schnobby (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp and nice composition. --Elekhh (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent zoo picture: it shows the head and neck in full detail and there is no disturbing or unnatural background. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Porsche FARA race Miami Speedway 8358.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2010 at 11:32:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 11:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 11:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MarioCRO (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little bit dark, perhaps, but otherwise great. Wolf (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zoom, zoom. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wolf. --mathias K 21:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Chmee2 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot, but could use some local level adjustment as already mentioned by Wolf -- Any1s (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Schacko04.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2010 at 12:35:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by powerhauer - uploaded by powerhauer - nominated by powerhauer
Support -- Powerhauer (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please login to vote. Yann (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Framing is really suboptimal : cut handle on the left, fold in the fabric on the right... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 01:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:14-33-29-ouv-schoenenbourg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2010 at 08:00:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice bunker how I know :-) This pic shows imo the bunker best, the rail system and the lighting. Good quality. Much better than the other one imo --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful perspective. --Jebulon (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jebulon -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice picture but imho not best perspective. Not having centered the bunker is still acceptable but for me the position is too low. So Ceiling seems to go faster to the center than floor does. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive underground view. --Myrabella (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:14-40-48-ouv-schoenenbourg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2010 at 08:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice light and good quality. gives a really good being there feeling... --mathias K 10:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a view point some footsteps behind would show more of the kitchen (?) and would be make a better composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chrysomya albiceps.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2010 at 00:34:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A mix of colours. C/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment + Neutral for now there is a little dustspot straight above the fly. Rest is pretty good, dof is a little low, but sharpness (downscaled??) and colours are good. bg mathias K 12:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

now Support --mathias K 11:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Until dust spot removed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not dust spot, OOF lights. Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good colours and composition. I'd like to recommend the removal of the disturbing OOF light spot at the upper right. --Cayambe (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I see one more dust spot above the fly. --Von.grzanka (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I removed the 2 I've seen. Muhammad if you don't like it, just undo it. bg mathias K 14:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Any1s (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cuenca Ecuador Corte sup Just 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2010 at 13:36:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Cuenca, Ecuador. Supreme Court of Justice, interior. Combination of colonial and modern architecture.
Support -- Cayambe (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Спас Колев (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Any1s (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the perspective does not convince me, sorry. Half the ceiling is cropped, the whole floor is missing (the archs are cropped in the middle). Colours etc. are nevertheless good. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DerHexer. Picture is imo not very useful for Wikipedia articles, the composition isn't good imo. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dislike the composition: neighter the roof nor the courtyard is fully visible, and the uninteresting lamp takes central position obscuring the central arch.- Elekhh (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DerHexer and Elekhh. Yann (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would prefer more creative composition. Ggia (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bahnsteighdr.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2010 at 06:29:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Powerhauer - uploaded by Powerhauer - nominated by Powerhauer -- Powerhauer (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Powerhauer (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is shown on the picture? What could be illustrated with it? --Спас Колев (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good example for an overdone HDR image. The quality is bad and using HDR brings no advantage over "standard" fotography or carefully exposure blended pictures. --mathias K 09:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'm very sorry :( What I like is the composition, but the technical realization is very bad. Some parts of the sky are grainy, some others just has some small noise and the next is very soft. Another piece of the image is in nice quality, the next is very unsharp and noisy. I like the light and the colours from the HDR, even if it's now oversaturated and it has at some parts a halo effect. Do you use a tripod? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good HDR, but Nnot of the best educational quality. Steven Walling 17:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Extreme noise and overdone HDR. Diti the penguin — 10:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grotesque light levels; also description "Bahnsteig" completely inadequate (where is it? why do the rails disappear into an apparent building site? why do the steps at the end of the platform descend into a shrub bed, not the platform?). - MPF (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steve Hogarth-Marillion-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2010 at 08:33:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Grzegorz Chorus - uploaded by MrPanyGoff - nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Steve Hogarth - Marillion - Live in Krakow, Poland 2009.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A good stage picture with good background light. For an excellent image i would wish less shadow in the eyes. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikiwaner -- Any1s (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Farmer in Tamil Nadu 1993.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2010 at 21:23:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--GerardM (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition with mirror in water -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per George --mathias K 14:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Out4blood (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Any1s (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent composition with the reflection in the water and the unusual point of view for a portrait. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valuable educational subject from the Global South and quite nice composition. Steven Walling 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why are the horns yellow and blue? --99of9 (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's part of the traditional Hindu reverence for cattle. These are likely this farmer's oxen for hauling/plowing, and as such are some of his most valuable assets. Steven Walling 22:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Blossom of Mirabelle plum.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2010 at 11:13:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Trachemys - uploaded by Trachemys - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trachemys (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Half the flower is not sharp. Imho not best solution to take a picture of it. So lens should have been more opened. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support quality okay, composition very nice --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good DOF -- Any1s (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chevre-Souris global.fond.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2010 at 10:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC) - uploaded by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)] - nominated by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done photo and perfect angle of looks -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support damn good picture! Quality, resolution, sharpness, value... Great! --mathias K 14:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would prefer white transparent background rather this one.. But I strong support the image. Ggia (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 22:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not a huge fan of the background (I'd probably prefer all black), but fantastic quality nonetheless. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cesco77 (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite of the background -- Any1s (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality, but I don't like the color gradient of the background. Why is it not completely black?--Citron (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a fantasy. Obviously it bothers. So I abandon the idea of setting up color gradient of the background for my next picture.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Czech W-3 Sokół 8496 cropped.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2010 at 21:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś - uploaded & nominated by Wolf (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, I am aware of the fact that this photo has certain drawbacks. But I like the way the reddish tint shows the shape of the clouds (even though by itself it should be considered a flaw), I also like the heli itself (note that it caught the green lights blinking). Well, take it or leave it :)
Support -- Wolf (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and lighting, even with the other flaws. An all-around quality educational photo. Steven Walling 01:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Steven! --mathias K 09:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NgoroNgoro Suedafrika-Kronenkranich.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2010 at 16:58:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 22:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cesco77 (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and again. :-) Looks like the NgoroNgoro crater is the paradise for animal photography. bg mathias K 14:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. didn't get to see this when I was there --Muhammad (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 17:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rust on iron.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2010 at 05:01:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Laitr Keiows - uploaded by Laitr Keiows - nominated by Laitr Keiows -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - good pic, but description could be made much more informative (e.g. what is the rust on, in what climatic exposure, and over how long did it develop?) - MPF (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because only a part of the center could be accepted as sharp. But the composition is very nice. :-) Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sympetrum sanguineum 01 (MK).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2010 at 09:48:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info a Ruddy Darter (Sympetrum sanguineum) c/u/n by mathias K 09:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mathias K 09:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good DOF, nice quality. Imo featured --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support composition could still be a little better (pretty much branch in the picture), but sharpness is very good--Loz (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The ugly branch is way too dominant in the picture. The lower right quarter of the pic is especially an eyesore. --Petritap (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Astonishing detail -- Any1s (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fishing boat in Magerøya, Norway.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2010 at 20:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Inisheer - uploaded by Inisheer - nominated by Inisheer -- inisheer (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support small ccw tilt and a bit too dark imo, but otherwise very good --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Abit dark but the clouds are better on this picture. Remi Mathis (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ludo (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Chandres (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support meow. DarkoNeko 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info retouched by Carschten
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —DerHexer (Talk) 15:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Why do not participate more users in this candidature?[reply]
Support -- Any1s (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Lovely composition but otherwise a bit grainy. I'm surprised to see the ISO was only 200. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20020800 Sanctuary of the Great Gods Palaiopolis Samothrace island Thrace Greece.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2010 at 06:54:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment scanned image from a slide film (fuji sensia 100asa) Ggia (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you want to vote oppose in my pictures you are welcome to do it.. but not to remove my pictures because of low quality. [2] You are welcome to vote oppose not only to this but to all my pictures (because of noise, composition etc). And definitely this photo is not low quality. It is made be fuji sensia positive film 100asa.. and films have usually noise etc. Unless there is a rule that every picture here should be made with the latest digital camera low noise technology. Ggia (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor image quality according to the present standars -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment the quality is not very poor.. Ggia (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right, the quality is not "very poor", but may be not good enough for FP. I rotated the image 0.40 CW. Yann (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Actinoscyphia aurelia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2010 at 11:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aquapix and Expedition to the Deep Slope 2007 - uploaded by Citron - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strange composition. The animal is neither at half nor at full size on the photo. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, however, part of the tentacles are cut off. I'd like to see the whole thing. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't it be "Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Actinoscyphia aurelia.jpg" instead of "Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Actinoscyphia aurelia.jpg"? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I take a mystake. --Citron (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a description above please? Yann (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Où ça? Le fichier a bien une description.--Citron (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate[edit]

Info created by Aquapix and Expedition to the Deep Slope 2007 - uploaded by Citron - nominated by Citron --Citron (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better, I think so --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp, nice and interesting. --Cayambe (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Any1s (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Lycaon (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

The chosen alternative is: File:Actinoscyphia_aurelia_1.jpg

File:Gaivota - Portosín-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2010 at 17:54:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez - uploaded by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez - nominated by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez -- Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great: nice colors and contrast, good composition. Yann (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but composition isnt so.--Mile (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, composition fine for me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bird is very sharp. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support although a bit pixelated. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salamandra salamandra Male Karpaty.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2010 at 07:41:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Doronenko - uploaded by Doronenko - nominated by Doronenko -- Doronenko (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Doronenko (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong flash reflect. Yann (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much too noisy + reflections -- Any1s (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann --Chmee2 (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition is okay, but there are the problems Any1s refered, sorry --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean oppose
  - oh, yeah, my mistake, sorry. Thanks :) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh lighting, noise. --Quartl (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated Cathy Richards (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's just what they look like. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry that the Nature oversaturated Salamandras... Doronenko (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vaux le vicomte 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2010 at 06:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jebulon - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by ~~Jebulon~~ Berthold Werner (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, colourful -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Any1s (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as photographer. I'm sorry, I'm not the nominator ! I corrected the info above. Anyway, it is a very good surprise, and many thanks to Berthold Werner. I'm happy if you all enjoy this pic !--Jebulon (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, there was one Jebulon too much. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

signature corrected by --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and interesting, and now inserted in WP articles. --Myrabella (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mathias K 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Piling on. Steven Walling 17:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Profile view of Atlantis (STS-129).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2010 at 14:16:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Unique view of space shuttle Atlantis on its penultimate mission.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much black space. Yann (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you rotate it 180? --HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 15:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it should be rotated, since that is its actual position, but the Shuttle itself is very noisy, and most is just blackness. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of poor image quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crepemrytle.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2010 at 15:17:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hoverflyz - uploaded by Hoverflyz - nominated by Hoverflyz -- HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 15:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 15:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very few parts sharp, very poor quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the picture is not sharp -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alt 1[edit]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the picture is not sharp -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TheTower-Ouranopolis-Athos-Greece.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2010 at 23:08:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MrPanyGoff - uploaded by MrPanyGoff - nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Old Byzantine Tower in Ouranopolis, Athos peninsula, Greece.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Спас Колев (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ -- Takabeg (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very interesting subject, nice composition, good sharpness. White balance seems a bit off (too yellow?). And why is the lower right corner so dark? -- MJJR (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little on the soft side though. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose it's not a bit too yellow, it's much too yellow. Compare [3][4][5]. The colours are very faked. The image is also tilt. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so "strong" Oppose, but I agree with Carschten.--Jebulon (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White balance and titled. Yann (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the center-composition. White balance is minor problem because it can be corrected. Ggia (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others and grey thing in bottom right corner. --99of9 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong White balance --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revised version[edit]

Info Revised version: color balance and perspective correction.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK after correction. Yann (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was to support, but I see now some strange artifacts in the lower part of the sky. Maybe I'm wrong ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would a crop on the left side (which would also deleted some CAs) help? —DerHexer (Talk) 15:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Creation-IMG 4784.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2010 at 06:18:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator -- Rama (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very good although I'd prefer a brighter background: Black for brown is a bit too dark imho. The nice image should also be added to some articles. ;o) Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks! :-)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done extraction -- Any1s (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valuable educational media for sure. Steven Walling 21:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support GL (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Support Black background is neutral, and nor disturbing neither distracting IMO. I find this object and this image very good. --Jebulon (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The same as Jebulon. Fine and valued.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Joggins mcr1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2010 at 20:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rygel - uploaded by Rygel - nominated by Rygel -- Rygel, M.C. (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rygel, M.C. (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pano. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportVery nice, please fix stitching error at the sky. I added an approximate location note.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the input, I fixed all three stitching errors in the sky and uploaded a new version. I think(?) that I did this correctly and that the retouched version is now the one that is displayed. Rygel, M.C. (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very special place -- Any1s (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work. imo a little more space on the right side would be even better, but overall very nice. bg mathias K 14:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arremoulit.JPG, not featured[edit]

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

I want to present this picture because i think it's good. The reflections of snow on the water is something wonderful, especially in the Pyrenees.

Info created by Kaprixo - uploaded by Kaprixo - nominated by France64160 -- France64160 (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- France64160 (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Noisy, unsharp, tilted, washed out, and the composition is far from ideal. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality not the best, composition imo okay, but the CA should be removed --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should the California be removed? MPF (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - hard chromatic aberration... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it was a (failed) attempt at humor. ;) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nope, a reminder that many / most visitors to this site won't be familiar with that particular meaning of the acronym 'CA', and that it should always be spelled out to help everyone understand what is meant - MPF (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I see (sort of). Well, given that FPC is a specialty process largely to which experienced photographers contribute, I don't think using shorthand is necessarily problematic. If we start enforcing silly rules on discussion pages as well as mainspace content, Commons' atmosphere will further degrade. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harpon 2010.0.3.5. Global simple .JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2010 at 17:08:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Didier Descouens - uploaded by Didier Descouens - nominated by GerardM -- GerardM (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice surprise Thank you Mr.GerardM --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support really good work. the reflecting lights at the spire of the middle part are a bit distracting, but overall very good. --mathias K 14:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There varnish on the name. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Steven Walling 22:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry to spoil the support party, but I find it too dark - the shadowed edges of the items (particularly the right-hand one) vanish into the black background. Also no sense of scale: how large are the items? - MPF (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The dimensions are given in the caption --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cesco77 (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Any1s (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I unluckily have to concur with MPF. The right harpon blurs into the background while all of them are quite unsharp, imho. Sorry, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Witty lama (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Lovely example of a museum artifact display. Witty lama (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shoot, I think I was gonna nominate this, oh well. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Rajagopal P. V., 2003.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2010 at 12:06:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Simon Williams, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait of an Indian leader. -- Yann (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but imo the posture isn't the best with the hands like this. Also the BW doesn't works the for me and the upper right corner is overexposed. --mathias K 14:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - interesting photo with good expression, but the crop is too tight, in my opinion. Jonathunder (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eight-spotted Skimmer (Libellula forensis).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2010 at 23:20:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the background is already much better than at your last one but the quality of the dragonfly is way below the macro bar. Sorry, mathias K 15:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a description above please? Yann (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valued image and quality image but due to lack of sharpness not featured image quality. --Quartl (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose as Quartl. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Four-spotted Chaser (Libellula quadrimaculata).JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2010 at 04:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, the unsharp background and the sharp animal --Schnobby (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but the overall quality isn't good enough imo. The dragonfly isn't that sharp and the background is too messy. Sorry! Bg mathias K 12:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Insect good, but I don't like background, sorry --Cesco77 (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Decent quality, but much too disturbing background -- Any1s (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cannot keep up with current macro quality. --Quartl (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Img20050526 0007 at tannheim cumulus.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2010 at 15:02:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Glg - uploaded by Glg - nominated by Epozokatrib -- Epozokatrib (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Epozokatrib (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it does not meet the size minimum (it's under 2 MP) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Engelberg-Titlis cableway wallpaper.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2010 at 18:14:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NatanFlayer - uploaded by NatanFlayer - nominated by NatanFlayer
Neutral Good photo, but boring, no real focus or subject. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Damselflies August 2010-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2010 at 18:01:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Blue-tailed damselflies (Ischnura elegans), copula. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dragonfly at bottom is partially overexplosed and blurred. We have several better photo of copulation this species -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course --Cesco77 (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are two QIs on this topic but composition-wise I find this the best. --Elekhh (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice scene but the little errors George allready mentioned prevent my support. bg mathias K 14:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a description above please? Yann (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- I don't understand. What kind of desciption? Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Composition is very good, but the body of the female is really overexposed. --Quartl (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Quartl and George. Info & Question As "Valued Images candidates" contest, this pic has now a very serious competitor with this one. Could we really promote as "Featured picture" an image which is not sure to be considered as the "best in its category in "Commons" " ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- VI and FP have little in common. The most valuable in not necessarily the best and vice versa. Lycaon (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even in this specific case ? With exactly the same scene ? Mmmmh, not sure... Well it was only a question. I think the other one is better, but matter of taste. --Jebulon (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info - The abdomen of the female is indeed overexposed. I have uploaded an improved version. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, could be a bit sharper, imho. The rest looks good to me. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2010 at 20:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Jimmy! Featured on en.wiki and unedited version featured on es.wiki created by Manuel Archain - uploaded by User:MickStephenson - nominated by User:Nard the Bard -- -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, nothing special, Multichill (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I disagree with Multichill (look at the list of articles it's used on), however, I oppose because the focus seems too shallow. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment delete, out of project scope, non-notable person (just kidding, not really ;-) . . . more relevant, after comparing with the original (cited above), I think the original is slightly better than this edit - MPF (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The focus and DOF could be better. The eyes should be in focus, resulting in sharp details. Depending on the aperture the rest could have a shallow DOF with f/2.8 or larger apertures. Or else overall sharpness with smaller apertures (f/7.1 f/11 etc.) Though the relevancy/importance of Mr Wales could be sufficient for a featured picture (see en:wiki nomination) I would be glad to see a technically more advanced version. --Peter Weis (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a image valued, do not featured Dottor Claudio ^{Segnali radio} 16:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto Covo August 2010-14a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2010 at 18:06:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Where is the lifeguard and why are the people staring at left? The Praia Grande ('Large Beach') in Port Covo, in a summer day. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see artifacts near the falling rocks sign. Multichill (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I can't see anything. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThere are something that looks like a red noise at the cave's entrance and in a few other places, but still FP for me.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some oddity causes pixellation whereever a person has a combination of light and dark skin tones or shadows. I'll mark a few people that suffer, but it's nearly everywhere. Perhaps the results of a curve or levels adjustment? --99of9 (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- I see some noise and posterization in darker parts, not pixelation. Anyway, it should be stressed that those minor effects are hardly perceived, even in full size, and that the picture was not downsampled, only cropped where necessary. The origin of these flaws is (I think) some underexposure of the individual pictures, which Hugin automatically compensated. Yes, it would look cleaner in smaller size but I want to preserve the full information. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ok, posterization is a better term. I appreciate that you've uploaded the full size, and am not advocating downsampling. I am just saying that there must be a better processing method that prevents these artifacts. Can you upload the originals so that if someone else wants to have another go at blending they can? ~~P.S. Why don't the image notes show up on the FPC page, only on the single nomination page?~~ --99of9 (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9 --Avala (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I sort of see what Toby is referring to, but it's not a huge issue in my opinion. I think overall this is a well-executed and high-quality panorama that I could frankly spend hours looking at – lots of detail. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per Alves' Info and Julian. The quality is very high and nearly more important at this one: the scene is very interesting and just great imo! bg mathias K 14:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP for me --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's hard to avoid ghosts when stitching images with people on them. Unfortunately you missed at least one which I marked on the image. Regards -- Any1s (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- I have uploaded a new and lighter version where most of the pixelation/posterization problems were mitigated, by manual cloning from the original pictures. No attempt was made to eliminate the detected ghost, as I don't consider the flaw serious. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to 99of9 and Any1s; also find it a decidedly ordinary beach scene, nothing very special about it - MPF (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ggia (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest I can't see much improvement in the new version. I've marked a masking problem down at the bottom of the waves. Personally I'm much more worried about the posterization than about the ghosting. The posterization just seems like it must be fixable. --99of9 (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a description above please? Yann (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- I don't understand. What kind of desciption? Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he means the one here: <div class="wpImageAnnotatorFile">[[File:Porto Covo August 2010-14a.jpg|x300px|'''''SHORT DESCRIPTION''''']]</div> –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, thanks. Yann (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wenzelschloss.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2010 at 17:59:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wenzelschloss in Lauf an der Pegnitz, Germany

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: distracting foreground, but for this circumstances a good result --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I like that motive. But it's imho a bit undersaturated (possibly also a bit too blue). I also removed some over-/underexposure errors in File:Wenzelschloss changed.jpg which I would recommend you to alternatively nominate. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Translate: Anmerkung, ich mag das Motiv. Meines Erachtens ein wenig untersättig (höchstwahrscheinlich dabei ein wenig zu blau). Außerdem habe ich noch ein paar kleine Über- und Unterbelichtungen im Foto entfernt, das ich zu einer alternativen Nominierung empfehlen würde.[reply]
Hallo, gerne kannst du deine überarbeitete Version als Alternative aufstellen. Vielen Dank dafür! Grüße
Could you add a description above please? Yann (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ich kann leider kein Englisch. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainer: er hat dich gebeten, eine kurze Bildbeschreibung oben bei „SHORT DESCRIPTION“ anzugeben. Ich habe es mal für dich erledigt.
@Yann: Done --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1[edit]

Support —DerHexer (Talk) 01:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue Wildebeest, Ngorongoro.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2010 at 05:13:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a description above please? Yann (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great sharpness, lighting, and composition. Glad to see this one is already being used as a lead image on en.wp. Steven Walling 16:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Steven. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hongera! Very detailed, illustrative posing. --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit too tight, perhaps, but otherwise great. Wolf (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 03:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - and very appropriate that is under a GNU license ;-)) MPF (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL:-) --Muhammad (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 06:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cotacachi volcano.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2010 at 20:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sylvain2803 - uploaded by Sylvain2803 - nominated by Sylvain2803. -- Sylvain2803 (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sylvain2803 (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soft, sorry! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring composition, technically mediocre --Ikiwaner (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inappropriate color space Cathy Richards (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cymbiola imperialis 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2010 at 11:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez| - nominated by Llez| -- Llez (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InfoFrom left to right: Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view of the shell of the Volutid Cymbiola imperialis. --Llez (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Llez (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good illustration and only image available to depicture this Volutidae. Hopefully this will draw necessary intention to the article. A .png with transparent background would be great. --Peter Weis (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you add a description above please? Yann (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Llez (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, but I mean [6]. Yann (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm usually not the biggest fan of these type of composite shots with the black background (though the're educational for sure), but this one is very nice. Steven Walling 16:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: --HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 16:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This wave of composite pictures showing natural subjects in various angles is extremely pleasant and useful. Kudos for the creators! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Koppelpoort Amersfoort Cropped.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2010 at 17:33:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bert - uploaded by Basvb (original uploaded by CrazyPhunk) - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a new version now (no big changes) because the metadata was lost in the old version. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Four solaire 001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2010 at 09:57:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good pic, and good description info - MPF (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting picture. It's tilted a little to the right. I will support when this is corrected. --99of9 (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition okay, but pixelated and unsharp --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as per Carschten. Also clockwisely inclinedneutral now. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Corrections done as proposed -- Llez (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support after corrections. Yann (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. --99of9 (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good picture of this very interesting objekt! --mathias K 15:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very interesting Ggia (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Nice picture, although it is not in perfect focus, it is undetectable w/o zooming in. --HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, but quality is on the poor side, with obvious noise and artifacts. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Main beach-pichilemu-2010eq.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2010 at 20:57:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diego Grez - uploaded by Archanamiya - nominated by Diego Grez -- Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the sky is really, really bad--Mbz1 (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad stitch (look at the boats, for example), poor quality. --ianaré (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sky isn't the only problem, tere's a very bad stitch on the right, and the quality detail is too low --Cesco77 (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, you can't ask for more if you only got a cellphone in an emergency situation :-) Diego Grez ^{return fire} 18:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another version. Neutral. ZooFari 03:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mattwj2002 (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC) - Historic significant because of the earthquake, location, and time.[reply]
Oppose bad stitch (look at the boats, for example), poor quality. --ianaré (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Historically significant indeed, but no FP quality -- Any1s (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Philips Lenardo BW 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2010 at 08:28:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner
Neutral -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition, high detailed, nice light --Cesco77 (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, corrected title. Two issues: Imho the image needs to be rotated anti-clockwise, and have you checked whether those puppets are trademarked and can be used? What's with copyright? Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, nice colors. Could be rotated for degree or two but if this is full crop i would let it as it is. --Mile (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, but this looks like a snapshot to me. If the goal was to photograph the old TV set (and the other antique items), the composition could and should be better. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a snapshot with “Exposure time 2/1 sec (2)”. ;o) —DerHexer (Talk) 01:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition: carpet and objects on the wall cut. Yann (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a description above please? Yann (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting picture, cozy but weird. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition: carpet and objects on the wall cut & color balance--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Landscape during Laugavegur hiking trail 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2010 at 17:36:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Chmee2 -- Chmee2 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition -- Any1s (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reduced some of the chromatic aberration at the hills, see File:Landscape during Laugavegur hiking trail 2-CA reduced.jpg. The new version would get a support from me, but it's your decision if you will nominated it at alternative. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another version[edit]

Info reduction of some of the chromatic aberration at the hills by kaʁstn Disk/Cat
Support better --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better -- Any1s (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support What Any1s said. ;) Steven Walling 22:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Landscape during Laugavegur hiking trail 2-CA reduced.jpg

File:Moscas. Fecundación. Bastavales, Brión, 090905.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2010 at 19:38:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Copula of Musca domestica in Bastavales, Brión, Galicia, Spain. Created by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez - uploaded by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez - nominated by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez -- Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I'm not sure. Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a very good picture, considering the relative simple camera used. But the subject is underexposed probably due to the contre-jour conditions of the shot. Maybe a smart levels adjustment and a slight saturation increase could do the job ... and make me support the nomination. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It should not matter what camera is used. Images shoild be reviewed on basis of their merit alone --Muhammad (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Alvesgaspar means that it is a good picture for a simple camera. He is not commenting based on that. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - (With that camera, I consider difficult to do the photo better: 1/2.000 sec. - f/7.1 - ISO 80 - only 1 flash - room almost without light). Sorry, for me, the photo could be overexposed, not underexposed--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No clipping; dark surfaces have to appear dark in the image. Great detail! -- Any1s (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO for FP, better is possible --Muhammad (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Muhammad. --Citron (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is a little dull. --99of9 (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9 --mathias K 15:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose animals lack contrast. --Quartl (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other version[edit]

Info Not overexposed and not underexposed (for me and with adobe lightroom 3.0), with more contrast and clarity--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO for FP, better is possible --Muhammad (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If your image it's better, why don't you propose your image to QI? Perhaps do you compare flies with red eyes with the flies with black or dark eyes? What you compare, please? Images shoild be reviewed on basis of their merit alone, not in comparison with others: I know that my image is not the best possible one--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both images show the same species of fly. What I intended to show was that your image is not properly lit since the colours don't come out all that well. --Muhammad (talk)`

I can't say this in english:

Español: Sin embargo, los ojos de cualquier ciudadano de Galicia (Spain) asegurarían que tu foto está sobresaturada y falseada, y que la mía es real. Quizás no sean los ojos de todas las moscas iguales, cosa que ya sé de antemano, pues las moscas domésticas de Galicia tienen los ojos practicamente negros. Por favor, diga algo sobre la foto que no esté basado en si el díptero es de una manera o de otra, o en la comparación con su foto o su experiencia en el objeto de la foto. (por otro lado, su foto, si los ojos de las moscas en su mundo son así, me parece excelente)

--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation:However, any Galician citizens would assert that your photo is over saturated, falsificated whereas mine is not. Maybe not every flies' eyes are equal, something that I know, as Galician flies have their eyes almost black. Please, you should not say something about the photo on the basis of the appearance of the dipterous, the comparation of your image or your experience on the photographed object. (If the flies in your part of the world look this way, then that's excellent for me)

Most flies have reddish eyes and all houseflies have red eyes. See this, this and this. The eyes in my image are not over saturated. The fact that your fly is sitting on a white surface has led it to be improperly exposed. It is not a bad picture but IMO it is not enough for FP --Muhammad (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You won!--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I don't know why your words (Both images show the same species of fly. What I intended to show was that your image is not properly lit since the colours don't come out all that well.) are without hour and date. I think that you know the reason--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't say this in english:

Español: Tras haber hecho esta segunda propuesta, me he puesto en contacto con todos los que habían participado en la discusión. Me he puesto en contacto con ellos para decirles que había una segunda propuesta porque lo considero ético: Han votado, luego si hay cambios deben saber de ellos. Yo no pretendo influír, mediatizar ni transtocar el voto de nadie, pero puedo informar para que voten con más conocimiento y libremente

--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation:After this second proposal I have got in contact with all of the participants in this debate to inform them about it, not because I want to influence or interfere with somebody's vote, just because I think it's ethical as they have voted.

Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support With this one, you can see that many hairs on the one fly's head are blown out on the other one. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is a little dull. --99of9 (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9 --mathias K 15:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sandahl (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't meet insect macro standards for FP. Lycaon (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose animals lack contrast. --Quartl (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough color --HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 15:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ngorongoro Crater landscape.jpg, not featured[edit]

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

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition is nice, but there's not any detail. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A really nice panaroma .. GerardM (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support relaxing.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Why so small? I was disappointed to find I couldn't zoom in past a cursory overview. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a description above please? Yann (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As kaʁstn and Juliancolton: too small, too little detail. Lycaon (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small to see the animals properly. --99of9 (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This image is a panorama of the crater. Animals are meant to be small. There are plenty images nominated above of the animals. FWIW, this image clearly meets the size requirements. --Muhammad (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rheinfall Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2010 at 16:31:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Any1s (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Any1s (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peter Weis (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, amazing image but imho a bit too dark. I tried to fix that (and some minor things) in File:Rheinfall Panorama changed.jpg and would recommend you to nominate also that version. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The picture might seem too dark, because of the hight contrast caused by the sun at noon. However, lots of detail got lost in your version (compare the bright areas of the waterfalls). -- Any1s (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'll try it a second time avoiding noise reduction. … Done. Ideas? Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi folks. I compared versions using PS and must admit that these changes are not quite reasonable. Changing the levels and therefore the general mood of the image does not seem to be necessary here. Note that dark areas affected by your edit tend to lack contrast. Using masks with levels/curves might be useful here. Readjusting the image's temperature from a coolish blue to a warm sunny tone is questionable if looking closer to the fauna (trees on right side for example). If considering a serious edit I recommend taking care of minor Chromatic aberrations, slightly increase sharpness and check the histogram for changes on levels/curves. Using masks/selections is critical. Regards. --Peter Weis (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, but I still find it too dark and too foggy. Small over- and underexposure is not critical, that's true. But I wouldn't oppose simply because of that. As I still like the motive but cannot ignore those things mentioned before I'm a bit undecided now what to do … Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Definitely underexposed. Maybe a levels adjustment will do the job but we can already see some chromatic noise in the dark areas... A geometric correction is due, look at the 'verticals' of the building at left. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info Revised version: levels, saturation, corrected perspective, additional sharpening -- Any1s (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Any1s (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Changes pay out well, dude. --Peter Weis (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version. --Petritap (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —DerHexer (Talk) 14:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better, hooray! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better now. --Cayambe (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice qualty. the buildings seem to be a bit distorted, but overall good for me. --mathias K 15:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
schwacher Support weil es grossartig wirkt, aber bei stimmungsvollerem Licht noch bessere Panoramen möglich wären. --Ikiwaner (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Rheinfall_Panorama_revised.jpg

File:Zebras in Ngorongoro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2010 at 19:12:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Nominated by User:George Chernilevsky George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is the third nomination of this user, I'm sorry... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had completely forgotten about that rule, sorry. Now that George has kindly nominated it in my place, would you reconsider the oppose? --Muhammad (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a {{FPD}} template for such situations. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support as nominator I agree with reason of kaʁstn. However it is very nice candidate. I give my limit or nominations for this candidate. It is my nomination now -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks George :-) --Muhammad (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per George. I don't at all agree with the new rule, and this is a very good picture! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Zebras are unfortunately glued together. Lycaon (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - don't think the 'gluing' is a significant mark-down MPF (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lycaon. A thousand apologies, Muhammad, because otherwise it's really a great photo. Wolf (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lighting is very special and the unsharp secondary zebras give the image depth. --Ikiwaner (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lycon. Unlucky bad composition. Sorry, it is really nice image and colours. --Chmee2 (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The touching part is very small yet so many opposes. You must understand that in the wild you can't always move or get the best position. Animals are not always predictable and minor problems like this should be expected --Muhammad (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very much aware of the impossibility to freely choose your subject when photographing wild animals. Here however the white and black very unfortunately almost seamlessly merge the two zebras. Nice as a gimmick but disturbing IMO for an FP image. No qualms with the image otherwise. Lycaon (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe they are conjoined twins ;-) MPF (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition and lighting make the image interestingly surreal, but is better when their front parts are glued. --Elekhh (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice!Great use of DOF--Mbz1 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lycaon. Otherwise a very good shot of zebras in the wild. --Petritap (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a description above please? Yann (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kussmund.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2010 at 14:35:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Powerhauer - uploaded by Powerhauer - nominated by Powerhauer -- Powerhauer (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Powerhauer (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Noisy and objects at the bottom of the picture. bamse (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really stands out here, distracting things on the bottom. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 15:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but this doesn't have enough of the clearness and appeal of a FP for me. Clementina talk 09:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Facily file Dr Claudio ^{segnali radio} 16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Yes, clouds are interesting, but there's nothing special about this photo, and it's a bit dark, slightly grainy. --IdLoveOne (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy and distracting things on the bottom, nothing special, crop--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lady in Bundi, Rajasthan.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2010 at 00:04:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing very special; distracting background - MPF (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support strong support. Ggia (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Although slightly oversaturated~~ -- Any1s (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 16:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated --99of9 (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MPF and 99of9 --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to correct the saturation. Please revert if not OK. Yann (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Yann! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture, and thanks to Yann for the edit. Now the saturation is OK for me. --mathias K 15:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the image is from 1986 - and it is made by analog film - and you can feel it from overal texture, colours etc.. Ggia (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kjetil_r 12:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Serengeti Bueffel1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2010 at 12:16:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support -- Any1s (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great one. Hongera! --Muhammad (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 16:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 17:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with Creatophora cinerea - uhm, v. good illustration. Przykuta → [edit] 21:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like this one very much. The quality is as always very good, but there are some composition problems. The crop on the right is very thight, also the bottom tight which isn't appealing imo. The bird on the top of the Buffalo is nice, but the oter pachyderm at the left is dirtracting. The lightning also could be better imo. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Comment Pale colours, ~~blue fog~~. --R.Schuster (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry, the blue fog was due my wrong monitor settings. --R.Schuster (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree the lighting is not ideal, but not terrible. I think the composition is nice, and am not bothered by any of the composition features kaʁstn brings up. --99of9 (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Savors and views are different --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ...and again. ;-) Good quality and I think the lighting is just great, I really like this nice warm mornig light. --mathias K 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and the birdie gives the image a nice touch. --Quartl (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, good quality but crop is not best, imho. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sturnus vulgaris in Napa Valley 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2010 at 00:14:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This picture was already a Featured Picture candidate in Nov 2009. --Petritap (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this one was not. I uploaded a new version over an old one.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also like the old version. Very impressive and it's a daily image (and a problem in the cities of Galicia (Spain)). Useful image--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good catch. --Elekhh (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is a random composition of birds, nothing special.. you can not see details of the birds. Ggia (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. BTW this "random composition of birds" is also calls flock, and it is not to see the details (it is impossible for such image), but to see the behavior.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example this image [7] and this [8] are more nice.. non comparing megapixels-noise etc but as general image concept-composition.. Ggia (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Appropriately rampageous. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, poor composition. Steven Walling 22:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Steven. Lycaon (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quote to share: "Without retaliation, evils would one day become extinct from the world."--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- This kind of poisonous comment doesn't add to the discussion and is unworthy of this forum and its participants. If you can't restrain from personal attacks please shut up. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all. The "the poisonous comment" was that one. So at that point I have no other options left except to show how lycaon is involved with me , and why he should stop voting on my nominations, as I do not vote on his. There was no personal attack in my comment, there was in yours like "shut up" of course.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ggia. Random, huge, mob-like flock, can't even see what one looks like. Maybe this was tremendous in size and resolution so that at full-view you could clearly make them out it'd be a double-whammy educational of the species and of flocks in general, but this doesn't impress me much. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image was taken from inside the flock, and it shows some birds are close to me, while others are farther out. It is nice to get the whole flock in a frame, which was all but impossible in my situation, but this image is different and definitely also illustrates a flock behavior.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't like the composition and the image quality is not up to FP standards, as most birds are too dark and show no detail. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's impossible to show details in such an image, it is not a close up portrait of a bird, and you should know that.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - While many of the birds are Sturnus vulgaris, fairly sure some (particularly towards the right) are not, probably being Molothrus ater and/or Euphagus cyanocephalus; but quality of pic is not good enough to identify them with certainty, and therefore opposing. - MPF (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but as per Giga the composition is not convincing enough for me. --Ikiwaner (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GrandMastersPalace-Malta-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2010 at 09:43:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The armoury corridor gate in the Grandmaster's Palace, Valletta, Malta.

Info created by MrPanyGoff - uploaded by MrPanyGoff - nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy --Citron (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: ~~Beautiful picture! Tons of color, but not enough to seem over-saturated!~~ --HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 15:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks a lot better when viewed larger. --HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 15:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Whats that black spot on the left? --HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 22:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noisy, tilted. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many noisy areas --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zebras and wildebeests, Ngorongoro.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2010 at 15:31:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Zebras are often found with wildebeests. This image shows the relationship with the focus on the zebra and background wildebeests. C/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Have to agree with the below, I got carried away by the foreground animals. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 15:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Blurry background with 2,011 × 1,341 --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not Featured quality. I would suggest a VI or QI nomination. Steven Walling 20:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Steven. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose w/ Steven –hover Fly | chat? 12:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Muhammad (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2010 at 09:57:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Powerhauer - uploaded by Powerhauer - nominated by Powerhauer -- Powerhauer (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Powerhauer (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting foreground. Yann (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is very good, but the composition isn't so. Distracting foreground (see Yann) and too tight crop at the top. The image is okay, but imo not featured, sorry --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --mathias K 14:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support no inappropriate foreground imho -- Any1s (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose leaves obscuring the face, dof should be better. --Quartl (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:Very nice! A really nice picture! = I really think that it is worthy of FPX status, except... The leaves obscuring the face just don't make the cut. Sorry, HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 00:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose leaves obscuring the face. Too tight crop--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snow leopard portrait.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2010 at 20:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tambako the Jaguar - uploaded by Connormah - nominated by Connormah -- Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Any1s (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ugly zoo background - MPF (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd prefer File:Snow leopard portrait-2010-07-09.jpg instead? ;o) —DerHexer (Talk) 12:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I do prefer that version. Jonathunder (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is way too tight. Steven Walling 17:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharp and impressive, but the crop is too tight below. Sorry--Jebulon (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice portrait, but some chin hair are cropped and the dof could be better. --Quartl (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop's fine IMO, doesn't need more "chin room" to me. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is way too tight.--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - crop; background a bit distracting. Jonathunder (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Alternative version created by Niabot --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Still don't think the original crop was too much. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version. Jonathunder (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20020800 Chora Samothrace island Thrace Greece.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2010 at 07:03:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment scanned image from slide film (fuji sensia 100asa), has aprox. 36megapixels resolution due to hi-res scan. Ggia (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [9] this photo is not a low quality. @Mbz1 you are welcome to vote to oppose for my photo (i.e. noise etc).. and if you don't like all my pictures (noise etc vote also oppose).. but read the FP rules before removing my photos.. and remember that you are not alone in this community. Thanks. Ggia (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I reduce the resolution from 36 megapixels to 9 megapixels i.e. like [10] it will have the same quality. Ggia (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the resolution decreased to 4.000×2.689 pixels to be similar to the resolution of [11] Ggia (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please do not remove other editors comments. as you did here .It is a vandalism.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I just inverted your edit.. my intension was not to remove your comment.. sorry for that.. please be more polite and don't remove other's pictures candidates.. thanks Ggia (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read the Commons:Image_guidelines and do not remove my photo. Thanks. Ggia (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, nice composition, but the quality is not nearly enough for FP. Noisy sky, and the image is not sharp.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is inside the Commons:Image_guidelines, Mbz1 remove the candidate without mentioning which Image guideline the photograph is missing Ggia (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot contest it. Somebody else should.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FPX stands until contested by a support vote. The nominator cannot contest it. Lycaon (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality and the educational value are at least as good as many other featured pictures, so FPX is not really justified. Yann (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality not solved by downscaling. Lycaon (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I mentioned it is a photo scanned from film (by a film scanner) Ggia (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose useful for wikipedia articles but per Lycaon --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice scenery, but overexposed, noisy sky, unsharp BG features. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ggia (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fomes fomentarius 2010 G2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2010 at 11:00:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by User:George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Tinder fungus (Fomes fomentarius) on a dead birch. Approximately 10 years old mushroom. Brown edge at bottom is new part in 2010.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but I don't like the composition that much. The left green side doesn't comes so good imo. Maybe another position where you can only see the mushroom on the birch would be better?! Sorry, mathias K 15:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not spectacular maybe, but high encyclopedic value, very good technically. Easily featurable IMO--Jebulon (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jebulon. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Serves its purpose well, and I think this is an easy choice for QI, but not quite as spectacular or unique as I'd expect from an FP. Sorry. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ditto to Jebulon - MPF (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral QI? Perhaps yes, but I think that it's not FP (DOF, composition, dark areas, sharp...) ... but high encyclopedic value--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose: see Mathias, Juliancolton and Lmbuga, sorry --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good detail, but unspectacular, background's a bit distracting. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose BG looks a tad overexposed and disturbs. Lycaon (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young Baiga women, India.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2010 at 15:07:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Simon Williams, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic color and a valuable portrait from an educational standpoint. Steven Walling 17:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp, very nice colours, interesting people and culture. --Cayambe (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment great but very noise! --Luc Viatour (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noisy but still great -- Any1s (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - interesting photo with good educational value, but the crop is very tight on the sides and it is noisy. Jonathunder (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise/artifacts deriving from either ISO/sharpening/resampling or any other postprocess degrades quality. Be so kind as to provide the original image if this picture is not out of camera. Regards. --Peter Weis (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This picture was donated to Ekta Parishad 7 years ago, and we don't have the original picture, sorry. Yann (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but full of post-processing artefacts. Lycaon (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Peter Weis - MPF (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not FP photo quality, but should be interesting enough for valued images? --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs to be geocoded for VI. Yann (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blaumeise 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2010 at 10:33:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Powerhauer - uploaded by Powerhauer - nominated by Powerhauer -- Powerhauer (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Powerhauer (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs a location. The bird is a recently-fledged juvenile. - MPF (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor focus, composition and lighting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like Juliancolton --Chmee2 (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ceriantharia by Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2010 at 13:35:43 (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) 13:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support :D --Citron (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support just great! bg mathias K 14:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow -- Any1s (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A few tentacles are blurry, but apart from that, it's fantastic. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with High Fin, and I also wish that it wasn't cut off at the bottom, but fantastic nonetheless. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sandahl (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very artsy but I don't like the completely unnatural colours. ~~Moreover, an aquarium species should be easy to identify. This one is not.~~ Lycaon (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai trouvé le nom complet "Cerianthus membranaceus" --Luc Viatour (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci Luc, c'est déjà mieux! Lycaon (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't it just be w:Bioluminescence? --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support JukoFF (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great photo, Luc, though I'm not sure the colors are right. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Luxembourg Kirchberg A De Gasperi entrance 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2010 at 11:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Cayambe --Cayambe (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Starting on January 2011, the Council of the European Union will be held in this building during three months in the year.
Support -- Cayambe (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you could remove that tiny little thing in the lower right corner it would be excellent to me. --Ikiwaner (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you. --Cayambe (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

now happily

Support --Ikiwaner (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Any1s (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice work --mathias K 14:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well mastered reflection on structure, which also brings information. --Myrabella (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; really nice reflections and colours but imho bad crop on all sides especially left (and right). Also needs to be rotated clock-wise, imho. Sorry, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not to be harsh, but the composition is atrocious. What exactly are we focusing on here with this subject and how is it a great educational photo? I can't even tell if the large gray structure in front is actually part of the foreground or not. Steven Walling 22:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no COM:FOP Luxembourg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pieter and Steven. Lycaon (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the overall composition does not work here for me, though it is a very interesting photo. Jonathunder (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Cause: copyright-issue (see the deletion request stamp). With a Thank you to the reviewers. --Cayambe (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please, don't withdraw this nomination. I think, the photo won't be deleted. The nomination has good chances. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info I herewith reactivate my nomination, sorry for that. --Cayambe (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose suspicion of copyvio, also per DerHexer --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is not a valid reason to oppose. We judge the image quality here. If it's considered a copyvio it will be deleted, otherwise not. There is another place to vote for this topic. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's valid reason to oppose. I can't support an image which has no impeccable copyright status. Strictly speaking I would aid a felony with supporting something like that (hard expressed). A picture which could shown something what is not allowed to show on photos can never be a featured picture imo. And I also write „per DerHexer“: the crop at right and left is much too small. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. --80.220.135.43 04:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kecskemet 2010 Breitling photo 9.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2010 at 19:46:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wolf (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lighting is better in this version. Steven Walling 22:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the other one because of its angle, but I do like this one's lighting better. I also like how it is more centered compared to the other one; while it doesn't follow the rule of thirds, I think centering, in this case, is better. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Any1s (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This a very good image for wikiproject aviation ;) Dottor Claudio ^{Segnali radio} 16:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info This is, obviously, a different plane and from a slightly different perspective, yet the photos are so similiar that I've decided to nominate them as alternatives.
Support -- Wolf (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think they're both feature-worthy, but I prefer this version. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice too --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm with Sperm Whale, the angle is better and it seems the co-pilot is aware of the photographer. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Wolf (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Kecskemet_2010_Breitling_photo_9.jpg

File:Helcogramma striata (Neon triplefin) on Diploastrea heliopora (Hard coral).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2010 at 19:41:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nhobgood - uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Steven Walling 21:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evidently. Lycaon (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pilsumer Kirche 2010.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2010 at 20:09:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. The gigantic church of the small village Pilsum in the northwest of Germany. Changes by the users Regi51 and derHexer, many thanks to them. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I like it. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Colours seem exaggerated. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

better now? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, colours and sharpness/resolution are fine at this one, but what happend to the building? The whole church is very, very distorted. I've set some image notes to show what i mean. Gruß mathias K 16:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, compare with File:Kreuzkirche Pilsum msu8.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info uploaded new version. Better now? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good, sharp and nice colours. -- Felix König ✉ 18:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info new version is better, but only a little! Have a look at the vertical lines, nearly everyone is sill not vertical but they should be at a picture like this. --mathias K 08:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a very good angle, but great detail and an interesting location. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Sorry, you've already voted above. --mathias K 10:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC) The church is old, but in reality it is still standing upright; the distortions in this photomontage are completely unencyclopedic. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /08:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

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

File:Vase vaux le vicomte.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2010 at 22:40:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as photographer -- Jebulon (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, excellent quality but imho a bit too foggy for sunshine. Did you reduce contrast? —DerHexer (Talk) 22:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC) P. S.: I tried a derivative work: File:Vase vaux le vicomte changed.jpg (increased contrast, slightly reduced over- and underexposure) Feel free to do whatever you want to do with.[reply]
Comment Thank you. Yes I did, You're right. Yours is better IMO. How to put yours (with your name) as a "new version" of mine in the same file ?
Well, I already saw different opinions on fog and contrast on FPC and would recommend to you nominating my derivate as an alternative version. If yours is better, I would do nothing with mine; if mine, I would afterwards load my picture over yours and would be happy being part of your picture's history because I do not think that changing contrast and similar minor changes can meet the threshold of originality. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please do so, and upload your (better) file over mine, as a new version, if you agree for a "co-operative nomination" here in FPC. You are welcome !--Jebulon (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done and Support, of course. If I misunderstood you in any way feel free to revert. And good luck. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done result, very nice composition -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 16:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as given in the QI-review. --Ikiwaner (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rational and logical ! (but was promoted as QI, at the end...)--Jebulon (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad angle. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may dislike the angle, or disagree with the choice made by the photographer, but you cannot say "bad angle", because it is not "bad". I disagree with your vote, and dislike it, but I don't feel it is a "bad vote".Thanks for review.--Jebulon (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - For something like a vase (yes, like "base," "case" and "chase" fools! lol) I think it would be so much better if we could get a straight-on front view, maybe slightly above or below. I also dislike the heavy shadow right under the top rim sadly, part of the vase is overexposed, part of it is under and a lot of detail is harder to see than it needs to be because of that, how this passed at composition in QI I just don't know. Maybe shoot it at a time the Sun's at a lower angle or there's some cloud cover softening and dispersing the light more evenly. =( Pretty scenery, yes, but if the vase is what we're voting on this isn't cutting it for me. This is a good example of something I'd consider really good vase photography, this is a good example of the cloud cover/low Sun suggestion. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you very much for explanations. I understand your mind now.--Jebulon (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olhos de um gato-3.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2010 at 12:01:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mark J Sebastian and tm- uploaded by tm - nominated by hover Fly | chat? –hover Fly | chat? 12:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 12:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF too shallow, noisy, looks oversharpened. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Good cat portrait/close-up, but can you do something about the chromatic aberration on the whiskers? --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- In my opinion there is no reason for the small DOF, which makes the muzzle and whiskers out of focus. Please check the category, there are some much better pictures of the subject. Also, the image seems oversaturated (see the noise in the background) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What does oversaturation have to do with noise? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing really, but is clearly visible in the noisy parts of the bkg. When a picture is manipulated in order to increase saturation, sometimes there is an obvious effect in the aspect of the noise, which becomes posterized. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the dof is too short here and the color variation in the background is disturbing. Also, the quote in the description should be correctly referenced if copyrighted. --Quartl (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination –hover Fly | chat? 12:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liptovský Hrádok (Neuhäusel in der Liptau, Liptóújvár) - WWII memorial.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2010 at 11:50:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting pic, but ~~grainy~~ unsharp subject. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support QI for me, and perhaps FP (I'm not sure). Grainy???? Where?--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I don't know what is grainy. The image can be blurred or not sharp, but grainy???--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, grainy's not the right word, but you can really see what I'm talking about by looking at that pine wreath. It looks like a smudged pastel doodle, compare and compare good stone quality. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:14-37-12-ouv-schoenenbourg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2010 at 17:38:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was the light really that yellowish? Looks like a wrong white balance. Same for the picture below. The quality is great, so please tell me if I'm wrong. -- Any1s (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the same white balance. The paint on the wall is different. --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too claustrophobic to be attractive - MPF (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very weird room, but that, I think, adds to its appeal, might be nicer if it were lightened. --IdLoveOne (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Perhaps QI, but for me not FP, cut of the table and..., too yellow--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose why? its a normal motiv without any impressive parts, and there is no article using it Bunnyfrosch (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:15-53-41-ouv-schoenenbourg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2010 at 17:37:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question --Wouldn't be this one at the right closer to reality? Just a guess, I never was there... That's just a fast edit made in a few minutes, so better results can been obtained spending a bit more time (or setting the correct white balance in the RAW-editing software). Feel free to delete it if you want as it's just a test. Sting (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've modified the WB. Your edition is so blue, but thanks a lot. --ComputerHotline (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's a tunnel, so the colors are going to be off according to the paint and the aging in it, the softness or harshness of the lighting in use, if there's any sunlight getting in at all.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a transit museum or something? --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. It's a fortification of Maginot Line (look it). --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then Support since I know what it is now, I was guessing from the tracks. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White Balance. I think that the second image it's better--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White balance. I agree with Luis. Yann (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sole e albero.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2010 at 09:34:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dr Claudio - uploaded by Dr Claudio - nominated by Dr Claudio -- Dr Claudio Segnali radio 09:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dr Claudio Segnali radio 09:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Bad quality: facing the sun. Yann (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - also no location, no species identity. - MPF (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cut-Mutiah1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2010 at 19:57:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An One and Only Unique Mosque in the world

Info created by NaidNdeso - uploaded by NaidNdeso - nominated by NaidNdeso -- NaidNdeso (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NaidNdeso (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad overexposure on parts of the building. -- Sdgjake (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is too small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2010 at 22:57:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hoverflyz - uploaded by Hoverflyz - nominated by Hoverflyz -- HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 22:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 22:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The white flowers are severely overexposed (no details are shown due to excessive light) and unsharp. Close to FPX. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the flowers are like that - all white --HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 23:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, clearly this was taken under a shadow, you can see a spot of sunlight in the distance in the upper right. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info -- Well, if this is not overexposed, I give up ... Alvesgaspar (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Fine, but I must admit, it is just mildly overexposed, it's only at the first third of the chart!~~ Stubbornly, HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 13:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If I'm not mistaken, the left part of the chart shows underexposed pixels (quite a few), and the right part shows the overexposed - there's very few of those, but all of them are on the subject of the photo. Wolf (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I'm used to looking at charts of that sort from the opposite direction... Never mind what I said before - you win-HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 16:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aeshna cyanea qtl3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2010 at 09:10:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Female Southern Hawker (Aeshna cyanea), side view. Four more views can be accessed from the image description page. Best viewed in full resolution. --Quartl (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Any1s (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the leaves are compositionally very distracting, and we have a pretty high bar for bug macro shots. Steven Walling 22:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Steven --Llorenzi (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Steven, unsharp wings. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Just does not seem to make it... With Steven -- HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 22:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at 100% very nice, but the background isn't perfect. --mathias K 10:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Steven. --99of9 (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serengeti Thomson-Gazelle3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2010 at 05:02:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well, as always!--Citron (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Nice! Looks really soft (and I mean the fur) --HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 13:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was gonna nominate this! --IdLoveOne (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 15:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very tasty. Yummy. :)Wolf (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Airwolf's right, you know! Actually, I've got a userbox on that...
Support Excellent--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Though I'd prefer a bit more meat on it, if we were to eat it. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk)
Support --AngMoKio (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the lightning is just .... WOW! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and again. ;-) Great! --mathias K 10:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Doucus (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing to add to other support votes, except my own support vote !--Jebulon (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very good. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sympetrum sanguineum qtl4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2010 at 09:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Young male Ruddy Darter (Sympetrum sanguineum), which has not yet turned red (the coloring of mature male dragonflies of this species). --Quartl (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Insane quality -- Any1s (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Steven Walling 22:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unsharp wings. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- The image quality is superb| What I like less is the angle, with a wing in front of the legs. No problem with the oof wings, that is inevitable. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Dottor Claudio ^{Segnali radio} 16:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support although the sharpness could be a little more crisp. The angle is no problem for me and the unsharpness of the wings isn't avoidable at a shot like this. --mathias K 10:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp as well as it could be - if the wings are sharp, then the body cannot be so - putting Quart in an impossible situation. –hover Fly | chat? 12:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not exactly always the case ;-). Lycaon (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Get all four wings of a dragonfly in side view sharp and you have my honest admiration :-). --Quartl (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not too much of a problem. Just take the picture from behin, not from the side. Wolf (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Chalcostephia flavifrons.jpg and File:Chalcostephia flavifrons.jpg. --Muhammad (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hey, that's cheating: it's eight wings and not taken form the side ;-). Lycaon (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Canada lynx portrait by Michael Zahra.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2010 at 21:37:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Zahra - uploaded by Connormah - nominated by Connormah -- Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fascinating closeup of a rarely seen animal in the wild. It's a bit small, but it is incredibly sharp. -- Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good and sharp, but less than .7 megapixels, sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to THFSW; also no location information - MPF (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's under 2 MP, sorry. Nice picture though. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Curtiss Jenny Płock 2010.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2010 at 15:45:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciej Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Wow. Might consider cropping, though... --HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 16:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question On which side would you like it cropped? Or do you mean cropping all around? Wolf (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Probably the top and left sides, but do as you see fit.
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Another great composition! Please don't modify. I like to see the boat in the background. --Ikiwaner (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MrPanyGoff (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting, but boring greyish water. A little tinkering with the lighting & saturation might be nice. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Edwin Smith Papyrus v2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2010 at 15:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jeff Dahl - uploaded by Jeff Dahl - nominated by 190.31.53.62 15:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could a nomination be anonymous ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's to stop me then from nominating a multitude of my images anonymously? --Muhammad (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The feeling that you're one of us and want to abide to the rules, and that you're not so praise thirsty? :) Wolf (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - To do that, you would have to jump from internet account to internet account, so that the IP addresses would not appear morethan twice. Is it really worth?... But I am with Airwolf, of course. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Any person with a dynamic ip address need not jump around. I am not going to do it, just pointing out it can be abused --Muhammad (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The contributor's knowledge of the nomination system makes me think it is a regular contributor who's computer logged out of commons without notifying them and they didn't notice (happens to me occasionally!) - MPF (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Could be, but he or she still did leave SHORT DESCRIPTION. Wolf (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - high educational value - MPF (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per MPF. Steven Walling 17:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - valuable and good technical quality in my view - --MrPanyGoff (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moonbeam - Brest 2008-10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2010 at 09:46:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ludo - uploaded by Ludo - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rama (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. I like the dynamics. Yann (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great!--Chandres (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good catch. inisheer (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment too dark imo. Could you correct it, please? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I try it this week-end. Ludo (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quality could be much better, but I like it... Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Most of the main subject (the boat) is dark and unsharp. Good composition though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Great composition otherwise, but just a bit too dark to be Featured quality. Steven Walling 17:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Support after brightening. Steven Walling 01:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've had a go at brightening it. Undo if not liked. - MPF (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I want to support this, but the people are too blurred. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp or too blurred--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition and dynamics. Schutz (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Coyau (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pymouss Let’s talk - 11:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thesupermat (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Four-spotted Chaser -(Libellula quadrimaculata).JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2010 at 17:18:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive DOF, nice reflection in the eyes, illustrative --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is quite good, but in my opinion not enough for FP due to the unsharp tip of the abdomen and the overexposure in the crack of the stem. --Quartl (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A quite good image, especially coming from a photographer who is giving her/his first steps in macro. But the insect bar is very high and the photo is not up to our FPs standards in terms of image quality and composition. Keep trying! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This proves it, I need to get a dedicated macro lens! I withdraw my nomination

File:Panorama Notre-Dame de Paris.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2010 at 08:39:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by gadl on Flickr - uploaded by and nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artsy, maybe. But absolutely unrealistic and definitely not my taste. I'm very interested by the (I hope) following debate between "pro" and "contra"--Jebulon (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Amazing perspective, it appears to be totally unnatural until you take a closer look. Looks like gadl wasn't the only one trying to get a picture... Maybe his is FPX quality too... –hover Fly | chat? 12:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The two reviews above were made before the link to the panoramic viewer was added. Because of the features of the Wikimedia viewer are limited Windows users may review this picture by using FSPviewer. --Ikiwaner (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, well chosen point of view and considerably few noise for a night shot. However there are avoidable stitching errors. Nothing against moving people but when we see ghosts with missing legs this disturbs me. This scene could be really excellent when all the people had been masked out. --Ikiwaner (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't this be in Quality images for technique? --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not elegible for QI as it's not made by a Commons user. You probably meant something like Commons:Photography critiques, but in this case nobody else than the crearor could help. --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ditto to Ikiwaner on ghosts, etc. - MPF (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --The top and bottom sections of the image should be cropped to avoid the highly distorted pixels from the post processing. Sting (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to have read my

Info and not to have evaluated the image in a panoramic viewer. If one cuts the top and bottom one looses zenith and nadir which decreases the panoramic's value. --Ikiwaner (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estuaire de la Gironde - pêche au carrelet 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2010 at 02:19:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Coyau -- Coyau (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coyau (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Composition doesn't seem ideal to me. Colors also seem rather dull. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - composition and colours look good to me. Educational value could be improved with some more detailed description, though (e.g. what are the big frames doing? what are they fishing for?) - MPF (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to improve the description, but I'm not a fishing expert. --Coyau (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For me QI, but not FP, cromatic aberration (blue): cords or wires--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're actually blue cords. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support blue cords really are blue. DarkoNeko 19:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No chromatic aberration here. Yann (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition; it's OK for me. Pymouss Let’s talk - 11:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This appears to be an eel fishing boat using pibalour push nets. See [12] (page 5 of 15). 75.41.110.200 13:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Coyau (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palmyre - théâtre pano.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2010 at 11:40:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The colour is due to the presence of sand in the atmosphere, the picture is taken during a stormy day. --Eusebius (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture Ggia (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 15:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good illustration. though the article is rather overpictured, this pano should be integrated if further information is available. --Peter Weis (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Phyrexian (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view and good rendering of the typical sand storm atmosphere. -- MJJR (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - such an interesting photo. Jonathunder (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Doucus (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support although red background, not best sharpness and bad crop at the bottom. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bunnyfrosch (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to have this picture --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Samurai with sword.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2010 at 22:23:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Felice Beato - uploaded by Brandmeister - nominated by Spongie555 -- Spongie555 (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spongie555 (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Commons FPC has a general minimum of 2MB filesize requirement. - IdLoveOne (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to historical value. And the guideline limit is for megapixels. Wolf (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a black & white photo has one channel comparing to the color photo that has 3 channels (RGB). This means the same color photo can be 3 times less in size when it is converted in black & white. Ggia (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not the best technically, and I know it's below size requirements, but I think the high historical value outdoes that. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly valuable historical image. Steven Walling 01:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The sword looks a bit strange (very wide) at the point end. Is this due to motion during the exposure time? bamse (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is motion result --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support rare historical photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As George Chernilevsky. Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Informative and valuable.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is no reason why a historical image should be below the size limit. Try to find a larger reproduction. E.g. the original from Brittanica is 1275×1600. Lycaon (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I uploaded the original image, which solved the size issue. Yann (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Thank you. Lycaon (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Luc Viatour (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mylius (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Seven-spotted ladybug (Coccinella septempunctata).jpg, not featured[edit]

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

Info created by Trachemys - uploaded by Trachemys - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trachemys (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice but not up to the present FP standards. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many blurry areas --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support do not excellent image, it's a good image Dottor Claudio ^{Segnali radio} 16:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A beautiful picture! HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 00:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but lack of composition, very small dof and the colours seem to be over saturized. --mathias K 15:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but lack of composition, very small dof and very small object--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Commons FPC has a general minimum of 2MB filesize requirement. - IdLoveOne (talk) IdLoveOne (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Okay, this is the last one. Remember: megabytes are not the same as megapixels. Wolf (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ladybugs are hard to capture well and this image does quite a good job, but for FP the subject is too small and partially obstructed, and the dof is too short. --Quartl (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butterflies, Alpine Botanical Garden Juliana.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2010 at 13:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded & nominated by Miha (talk)
Support --Miha (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - species need identification. The flower is a species of Echinops; the red "butterflies" are actually a species of Zygaena (a genus of day-flying moths), possibly Zygaena filipendulae (not sure what other similar species might occur in the area though). - MPF (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice compostion, but the with part in the middle of the top is disturbing and the DOF is much too low imo --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- The colourfull moths are probably 6-spot Burnets (Zygaena filipendulae) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Carschten, I'd definitely would be in support of this if it were sharper. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Seems sharp to me, (but then again, I haven't been doing this for long), so I give my support - HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor dof--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Flower name is Echinops ritro subsp. ruthenicus (Bieb.) Nyman - in Slovenia only 3 spiecies Echinops grow in nature and only one of them is blue.--Pinky sl (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Commons FPC has a general minimum of 2MB filesize requirement. - IdLoveOne (talk) IdLoveOne (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info He's made a big mess, hasn't he? Wolf (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really, a little one maybe, and I had already voted neutral anyways. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above DOF. --Karel (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)-[reply]
Oppose Nice omposition, but too few things are in focus here. --Quartl (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steam Phase eruption of Castle geyser with double rainbow.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2010 at 23:55:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cropped rainbow at left, on frame size that would also have looked better by being wider (golden ratio) with less cropping. - MPF (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I used 17 mm, the widest angle I have. The image is not cropped, or maybe it was to crop off the people. I do have the original, and quite a few different versions, but I will not even look for them. All this FPC reviews could make one very, very tired--Mbz1 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has to be cropped. The dimensions are 2000×1674, and 1674 / 8 = 209,25, so at least the vertical dimension has to be cropped (3008×2000 with a vertical alignment perhaps?), because a jpeg's width and height has to be commensurable with 8. Wolf (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I've just realized that I am no longer care for that thing that calls FPC.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The rainbow is not the main subject (just an accessory for aesthetic value) and the cutoff is minor. Looks good to me. ZooFari 23:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Educational and good aestetically. Ggia (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and and very rare. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition according to the rule of thirds, nice colours, educational. --Ikiwaner (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated. Lycaon (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info user:lycaon is the user, who used a sock account to double oppose my nominations. The account was also used to double support his own nominations. I was the one, who caught him that's why that user is involved with me and should avoid voting on my images.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is it the place here to add these comments? Ggia (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ggia, I sent you email, and I am ready to answer all your questions via email.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Ggia, Sticks and stones may break my bones but lies will never hurt me. Lycaon (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The truth speaks for herself. There's no need to defend the truth. On the other hand the lies do have the need to be defended with yet more lies.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Kooritza (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sturnus vulgaris -California-8.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2010 at 04:15:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ingrid Taylar - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by IdLoveOne -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, I like the composition - the crop may be, perhaps, a little tight, but it doesn't degrade from the overall image quality IMO. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 05:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop at the left is a bit tight, but this could easily be improved. --Cayambe (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb composition. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Kevin. Steven Walling 17:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, but I do find the crop too tight, and it's not as if Starlings are difficult to get pics of. - MPF (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good.. Ggia (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good.--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As MPF. --Mile (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MPF --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rajagopal speaking to 25,000 people, Janadesh 2007, India.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2010 at 14:23:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ekta Parishad, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support An impressive picture of an exceptional event, on October 2, 2007 in Gwalior. Yann (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting to see the expressions on the people's faces, but if this is about Rajagopal(?), shouldn't we see his face? --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think this is about the crowd ready to walk 350 km to Delhi. I added the exact date and geocoding. Yann (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent. DOF and useful--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall excellence. Steven Walling 20:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tried finding people doing interesting things...so far, I've only got on guy itching his nose and another itching his hair. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No fingers inside the nose?... Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, nice situation but crop at the bottom seems not to be best to me, also sharpness of Rajagopal should be better imho. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Serengeti Elefantenherde1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2010 at 17:44:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the large one in the middle the matriarch or just a large female? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. How would one recognise? --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Jebulon (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just great! The scene, the composition, the colours... Only minus, the right one looks like he's a little drunk and tilting over every moment. ;-) --mathias K 10:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per mathias. :) Steven Walling 16:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I'd preferred a more lateral view. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tamba52 (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20100913 Ancient Theater Marwneia Rhodope Greece panoramic 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2010 at 07:50:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop, perspective distortion. Yann (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotta agree, it's cut off at the bottom. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the bottom has some stitching errors and I cropped it. but the object is the stadium which is all visible.. Ggia (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeStitching errors? The native resolution of this camera is 4,256 × 2,832. Why stitch? Btw, your horizon is tilted. Lycaon (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:View of the Rabí Castle (2).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2010 at 12:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Chmee2 -- Chmee2 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad, distracting weather ruins it. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I disagree, the light is beautiful and adds to the nice mood and composition. What I do not like is the image quality: unsharpness, lack of detail... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Actually the clouds add something interesting here. Yann (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alves --mathias K 10:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Support At least I gave it a try by helping with the details. -- Ximonic (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks --Chmee2 (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tlusťa (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flickr - HuTect ShOts - Ceiling - Masjid of Sultan Hassan مسجد ومدرسة السلطان حسن - Cairo - Egypt - 28 05 2010.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2010 at 09:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ahmed Al.Badawy - uploaded and nominated by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A very dramatic picture. Would do very well in a museum of abstract art –hover Fly | chat? 12:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Random crop, poor image quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20100911 Kotani village close panorama Xanthi Thrace Greece.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2010 at 14:19:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a more panoramic version-view of this image is this one [13] but you cannot see much details of the village. Ggia (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but really wish the weather had been better. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the quality is good, but the green bushes in the upper third have a strange colour. Even by comparing with the other version you've linked. --mathias K 10:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some differences.. If you check the map (look the gps coordinates of both images).. you will notice that this picture is shot by close distance (it was used 50mm lens and the 2 images has been stitched using Hugin software). The other version has different angle of view so the light has different angle.. It is also shot by distance (images shot using 105mm lens and stitched using Hugin software) means that colors can be less bright not only due the different light-angle but also due to humidity etc. It did not try to add saturation or apply changes in order to be more bright the colors in that part. For sure this image during sunny day will have more joyful colors but even in cloudy weather I find it nice. Ggia (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HaTe (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximonic (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hurricane Earl 2010-09-03 1750Z.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2010 at 18:48:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by w:MODIS - uploaded by HurricaneSpin - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Added some towns. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing really all that special to this satellite image. Although it is a very high-quality image, what is in the image isn't so good. The way Earl is shown in this image is as a weakening system that is poorly organized and doesn't have any features that are uncommon or have few high-quality images. Also, there isn't enough land to really give a complete feel of where the storm is, if the image was just a smidgen bigger, it could work. Sorry, there are just much better images of Tropical Cyclones available. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loxodonta africana crossing the Zambesi.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2010 at 23:45:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info African elephant crossing the Zambesi. Created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems like everyone on Commons is going to Africa except me! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can go to Poland. :) Wolf (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark, not well lit and only a small portion of the elephant is seen (which is not recognizable if one was not aware it was an elephant). --Muhammad (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually like the image very much, but cannot vote because I am involved with lycaon, or rather lycaon is involved with me :), but IMO this image is an absolutely great illustration for the article w:Loch Ness Monster .--Mbz1 (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support unusual behaviour of an elephant, great lighting --Ikiwaner (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Dramatic ≡HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 13:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Precious, great light, good movement--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual, but very interesting and nice. Furthermore, I would like to say to THFSW that he's not alone...(but I don't know Poland too)...--Jebulon (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare picture.--Citron (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but bad lighting, subject's almost completely not visible - not FP quality. Valued images would probably be better. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Commons FPC has a general minimum of 2MB filesize requirement. - IdLoveOne (talk) IdLoveOne (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't support, 'cause I've already supported, but I think no one in their sane mind will contest my contestation, will they? And so as to keep the vote count kosher, I've stricken ILO's previous vote. Wolf (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the claimed FPX is nonsense, the pic is over 5MPX; I suspect IdLoveOne has mis-read the 2MPX limit as "2MB" - MPF (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, my mistake, so I retract and stick to my original POV. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too dark. Interesting subject, but not Featured quality. Steven Walling 01:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is an interesting composition. Ggia (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colours and composition are just awesome! --mathias K 10:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I hesitated a lot on this one before I realized that this picture has two strong components, the aesthetical and the illustrative, both mitigating the somehow less-than-perfect quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lighting is one of best things about this shot IMO. That is what creates the mood and colours, that is what highlights the spray (which would be very boring if the trunk was in full light). --99of9 (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the atmosphere which the lighting makes. -- Ximonic (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dark, unsharp, not much subject. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Acrocephalus scirpaceus 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2010 at 23:52:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gollibolli - uploaded by Gollibolli - nominated by Gollibolli -- Gollibolli (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gollibolli (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I think some cropping on the left would be ok. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --188.25.129.11 16:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --92.238.255.12 17:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can IPS vote?--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, IPs can't vote. Please log in. Yann (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good composition (and good image), but too green, white balance it's not ok for me, but it is possible that I am mistaken--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition. Steven Walling 20:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the great detail at full-view and the attractive preview on the image page? --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is a love... Good image! :D Dottor Claudio ^{Segnali radio} 18:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition --mathias K 15:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White balance off Cathy Richards (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, looks very nice when white balanced in GIMP (needs the crop more desperately then though). --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cannabis sativa plant (4).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2010 at 13:05:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Tlusťa -- Tlusťa (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plant of Cannabis sativa
Support -- Tlusťa (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Firstly I'm just gonna lay my bias against featuring images of recreational drugs right on the table (a high quality image of a cancer or glaucoma patient smoking, breathing vapor or w/e NP and would be much more interesting than another "legalize it now!" style picture of a pot plant or leaf), aside from that it's kind of cut off and not framed well, though the lighting's good. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, images of cancer will be useful for projects as well, however I do not have access to people or they biopsy organs with tumor. If you will make me opportunity to photograph them, I will try my best do FP/QI of they tumor too. I already tried to make access to dissecting-room of one Uni, but due to personal rights of families it failed. This time, I had possibility to make images of plant, so I did it. I am trying to make good images of everything which has some value for us or has article on Wikipedia. So I believe this voting is about this image, not about philosophy if I/you agree with object of image or not and it is sad when somebody/you evaluated on the basis of his/her position to drugs. But if you voted against for reason, that you don't like the crop or composition, OK, that's fair and I accept it. I will try next time make better image, every day it is about learning how to do good images. --Chmee2 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant it would be interesting to see some HQ slice of life usages of pot medicinally. Since the '60s hippies have been talking about how medicinal pot is, science sometimes agrees with them, yet, all we ever see is people smoking for fun and to rebel. I want to see it in a light we can all agree on. =) (I could just imagine "Legalize it!" in yellow graffiti font on the upper right lol)

Neutral per MPF and my comments about the composition and that for something possibly controversial it should be really interesting somehow. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Good pic. I don't see anything here suggesting a "legalize it now!" POV; the pic might just as likely get used in production of a police training manual to help enforcement officers identify the plant in their work. - MPF (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't care about the subject matter, but green-on-green composition is not ideal for an educational photo. Steven Walling 20:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - crop and composition not ideal. Jonathunder (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeagree with Steven --AngMoKio (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would prefer better composition.. or may-be a more creative crop of this image.. Ggia (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful pic, but not featurable as other said. Aside this, we are here to estimate the picture quality, if someone don't want cannabis to be legally consumed in his country, simply ask his government to prohibit it. It has nothing to do with Commons. --Phyrexian (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see here anything like an advertisement for cannabis use. Cannabis sativa indica is a plant, as papaver somniferum album or others. But I completely agree with Steven Walling about the quality. A very good pic of this kind of plant can naturally be featured here IMO, but I think it is not the case here, unfortunately.--Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Comédie Française colonnes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2010 at 11:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The subject's cut off, there's a tree a little in the way and not sure this is an angle everyone's gonna love, but pretty good. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition problems: I see no reason for the top of the building to be cut off (you'll still get the perspective you're going for), in general the cropping is too tight. Steven Walling 22:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Many thanks for nomination. It is a good QI, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Steven Walling --Karel (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girl in market.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 13:26:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jim Snapper, uploaded by Kelly, nominated by Yann (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's a normal photo in normal quality of a normal girl in a normal pose. Nothing featured to me, sorry --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to kaʁstn - MPF (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Carschten--Jebulon (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nominationYann (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ginkaku-ji after being restored in 2008.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2010 at 08:02:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Laitr Keiows - uploaded by Laitr Keiows - nominated by Laitr Keiows -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown white in the sky --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown sky. --Cayambe (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - also some strange moiré patterning in the roof at full size - MPF (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good subject, but technical problems. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inachis io qtl4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2010 at 11:14:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Caterpillar of a Peacock Butterfly gnawing at a Stinging Nettle. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 04:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximonic (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panorama Berliner Olympiastadion-Glockenturm.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2010 at 14:57:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly informative. Classic composition. --MrPanyGoff (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice view. --mathias K 10:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Oversaturated; messy foreground - MPF (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, saturation should be reduced. Also blue light is too strong, imho. Then I'd support. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Had a go at reducing the saturation and making the grass more grass-coloured; undo if not liked. Doesn't deal with the construction debris etc cluttering the foreground, of course. - MPF (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As MPF. --Karel (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SvetiSedmochislenitsi-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2010 at 12:54:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Exterior mosaic icon of Sveti Sedmochislenitsi (The Seven Saints) on the church of the same name in Sofia.

Info created by MrPanyGoff - uploaded by MrPanyGoff - nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Can you reshoot this without pigeons? --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ;) Yes, I can reshoot it but this would be another matter. OK, if more commoners here think that the pigeons are distracting then I'm going to reshoot it.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I kind of like the pigeons, but is this slightly tilted? Jonathunder (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not worried about the pigeons, and it is level (several of the brick courses aren't, but that's the building, not the photo!) - MPF (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess the pigeons aren't that much of a problem, you'd expect them to be hanging around. Nice mosaic. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the pigeons add to the composition, actually. Steven Walling 01:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, should be rotated anti-clockwise (about −0.3°). —DerHexer (Talk) 12:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an optic illusion. I analysed it again with axis. The main problem is in the lower stone frame of the mosaic. The stone block that is in the lower left end is longer than the vertical outline of the frame. The block in the lower right end is somehow widen. Its horizontal outline is not parallel to the internal one that's why it looks hanging down. The all internal lines of the frame are strongly vertical or horizontal. The bars of the windows are strongly vertical too.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puncakjaya.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 14:44:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mgiganteus - uploaded by Mgiganteus - nominated by NaidNdeso -- NaidNdeso (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the only snowy mountain in Indonesia located in Papua. NaidNdeso (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: much too small, only 0.3 mp, sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 14:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kobalt electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 00:47:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As always. --Mylius (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the use of the cube as a scale, artistic and functional. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work, as usual. Steven Walling 04:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support hast uns ja lang genug warten lassen ;-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as usually.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not usual to me...--Jebulon (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Westliches Ruhrgebiet.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2010 at 12:15:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. A high-resolution panorama over the western part of the Ruhrgebiet. You can see parts of the ~~villages~~ towns Moers, Duisburg, Voerde and Neukirchen-Vluyn (see Image Notes), looking from the Halde Norddeutschland. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ist das ein Staubfleck im rechten Drittel über den Schornsteinen oder ein Flugkörper? Haste mal ein wenig mehr Kontrast draufgetan gegen den Dunst? --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wenn wir den gleichen Punkt meinen, dann handelt es sich nicht um einen Sensorfleck, sondern (wie auch extra in den ImageNotes angegeben) um ein Luftschiff (habe es sogar noch identifiziert, siehe (natürlich ) in den ImageNotes). Das Bild wurde im frühen abendlichen Schein aufgenommen, da war es natürlich schon etwas dunstiger. Meinst du, ich sollte noch mal etwas nachfälschen? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tolles Übersichtsbild. --Mylius (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Das Bild ist gut, ein wenig am Kontrast drehen würde ich wohl dennoch gegen den Dunst. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Muss man hier nur Deutsch sprechen ? ;) Schönes Bild, für französische Augen auch ! Bon boulot, Carschten ! --Jebulon (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It's just that I wouldn't call Duisburg a village.;) MartinD (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

corrected just for you ;-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- MJJR (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, ἀγαθόν. Auch ich würde den Kontrast korrigieren. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support - nice pic, but horizon slightly S-shaped; high at left edge and mid-right, low at mid-left and (most obvious) at right edge, and I don't think it can be accounted for by ground elevation. Can it be straightened a bit? - MPF (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting!--Mbz1 (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2010 at 16:47:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. A night picture in Duisburg with lot of sights (see Image Notes at the file page). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very interesting, nice composition, good quality. Please use the picture in some projects (it's orphan...) -- Felix König ✉ 19:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, esp. because of the ship: It's on the one hand unfavo(u)rably cropped, on the other one too dark (like the whole image, imho). I'm very sorry. *hugs* —DerHexer (Talk) 16:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distracting foreground Cathy Richards (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what's distracting there to you? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose distracting whole pic ;-) . . . a disjointed set of differently-coloured separated glowing lights set in near-black. Doesn't do anything for me. Sorry! - MPF (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sperm whale starting to dive (2).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 08:50:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by David Csepp, NOAA - uploaded by Totodu74 - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the three images should be better separated from one another. At first I thought there were three whales diving... bamse (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry but this looks just too artificial and the stitching lines are clearly visible. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I separated the three images. It's better?

Support Good idea to show multiple images, although an animated GIF might be better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think an animated gif with just 3 frames would be much good ;-) MPF (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sperm Whale supported by The High Fin Sperm Whale ;-) -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'ts the sperm whale 's cabal! --Citron (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that! Funny though. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citron (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Devastation in San Bruno.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2010 at 23:26:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The area is closed. The place I took the images from was the only one that was opened on that street.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not care, just to share I am talking rhymes -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality, and the composition is great. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version (but not the alternatives). Good quality, interesting picture. --Petritap (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support please be so kind as to add the metadata of your camera. --Peter Weis (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, stitching errors still very obvious (even in the thumbnail above), particularly in the road - MPF (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support very realistic. Kooritza (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stitching errors visible in several places. Steven Walling 01:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stitching errors pointed out by MPF were fixed. In what places you see stitching errors, if I may ask?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fear it has just resulted in the stitch being moved; the two source photos show the road in different angle and light conditions, and stitches can only be moved, not eliminated - MPF (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you believe that such an image should be opposed because of one hard to see stitching error on the road, so it be. Who cares.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, it is conspicuous, it jumps out at you. If it was hard to see, I'd agree it couldn't be opposed for that, but it is easy to see. Sorry! Alt 1 below is better in that respect, there's nothing so obvious there. - MPF (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support yes there are several (minor!!) stitching errors, but the overall quality and the very high value make this picture just awesome imo! --mathias K 10:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support i agree with Mathias. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing Great picture of a hard to get subject - amazing –hover Fly | chat? 12:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1[edit]

Info A wider view. The license plate of not burn car was blurred to protect a privacy of a driver. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version is better (see comments above re stitching) - MPF (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt1 too --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technically, this one is just as good, however, I prefer the first one. The cut-off car on the left makes you want to see more. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Composition: I don't like the cut-off vehicle at the left end. Jonathunder (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Mbz1 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 2[edit]

Info A wider view yet. The license plates of the cars were blurred to protect a privacy of drivers. I tried to capture a more or less complete image of one street. There are a few streets like those.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --I think this one is much better than the two others: the shrinked sight of the first ones makes them impersonal, timeless and placeless; it could be in any country and be the consequence of any event, first in mind, wartime. This larger view brings a valuable journalistic dimension, making it more interesting than the others. Can you correct the perspective at the left the same way it is at the right? Sting (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the wide view, which gives context, but the tilted angle at the left is distracting. If that can't be corrected, I would suggest cropping just to the right of the tall pole. Also, does the license plate on the marked police vehicle need to be fully masked? I understand why this was done on the other vehicles, and it is less noticable on those. Overall, this is a fascinating scene and I'm sure there is a featured picture here. Jonathunder (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I made yet another panorama File:Devastation in San Bruno 10.jpg. I believe perspective on the right is better now. I do not know how to fix perspective myself, but I will ask Dschwen. Maybe he'll be willing to help, if I email him originals. About police car. I do not know. I asked the officer, if it was OK to upload an image of him on the NET, and he said it was, but I have never asked about the license plate of his car. BTW he was a very nice man. When I just came, his car was parked in the middle of the road, just in front of the burn cars. I asked him how long he was going to stay like that, and he said "Whole day", but he moved his car to the left, when I explained to him that it was closing my view.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 3[edit]

Dschwen kindly agreed to work on Alt2. In a meantime here's one more panorama.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four alts! That's got to be a record! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have quite a few more, but I believe I'll stop for now. I was overwhelmed, when I looked at that place, and I wanted to describe this feeling with my images. I have never seen anything like that before.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info -- According to the rules this is a new nomination, not a new version of the previous picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that a number of alternatives are limited?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there's no limit for the number of alternatives allowed: I think what Alvesgaspar means is that for nomination a to be considered an alternative to nomination b, nomination a has to be a different version of the same picture presented in nomination b. As it says in the general rules, "A different version of the same picture is not considered a new nomination and should be added as a new subsection, inserted after the original version." Thus, if a picture is not a different version of a picture, it should be considered a new nomination, not an alternative. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 03:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not sure about that. Let's say I would like a few similar images to be reviewed, but only one of them promoted. It is better to review them all at the same time. In that case reviewers see all the versions together and could choose the one they like the best. If I am to nominate them as a separate nominations, a few similar images could get promoted potentially. Thank you, Kevin, for responding my question. I wish Alvesgaspar explained to me what he meant too, but that's OK.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info -- I say again: according to the new rules only different versions of the same picture can be considered as alternatives in a given nomination. Different pictures must have a nomination of their own. At this moment, Mbz1 has 4 different active nominations. Please choose which are to be withdrawn. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the rule #12 states: "A different version of the same picture is not considered a new nomination and should be added as a new subsection, inserted after the original version.", but unless I am missing something nowhere it is said that "Different pictures must have a nomination of their own" and that I cannot add a different image as alternative, if I wish to. If there was such a rule, it would have been a stupid one. If I am missing something, may I please ask you to be so kind and to quote the exact rule?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to urge everybody to go here and voice their interpretation of the rules in question. Thanks. --Petritap (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Mbz1 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Devastation_in_San_Bruno.jpg

File:Chlorocebus perspective.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 08:32:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work! --Citron (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximonic (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral noisy --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Good comment. Attenuation of noise on the dark and medium aera --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support now --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support another good one --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 06:28:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well! --Citron (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't really like the trees behind it, but this might be my favorite of yours yet, Iki. It's so sharp. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely --Schnobby (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need of my Support now, but just to say how I feel admirative.--Jebulon (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support 95.145.99.116 20:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No anon votes allowed, sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Milkweed.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 05:35:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hoverflyz - uploaded by Hoverflyz - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no location, no species identification, poor depth of field with very little in focus - MPF (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't we just supposed to judge the picture, not specific details like its taxonomy? --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. This is not a site for uploading one's artsy pictures and get others to go all wow about them. Pictures should have an encyclopedic value. An artistically out-of-focus unidentified yellow flower has none. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - General rules #7: "Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project." Encyclopedic value is for Wikipedia to debate. Commons:Image guidelines makes it very clear that our focus is on technique and detail. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MPF --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not ID'ed. Lycaon (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too low quality Cathy Richards (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gornergletscher panorama, 2010 July 4.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 13:12:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ximonic - uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximonic (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info A while ago one created a nomination of a wintry panorama from Gornergrat. Here is one taken in summer. -- Ximonic (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hard chromatic aberrations, the colors are looking a bit washed-out imo --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see chromatic aberration? The red colors on the foreground rocks could be natural.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I marked some examples. There are lot of more parts mit CAs. Of course the red in the foreground is natural :-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral chromatic aberrations, good composition though Cathy Richards (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mother and child in Bundi, Rajasthan.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2010 at 23:56:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality educational portrait from the Global South. Steven Walling 01:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Pleasant composition with an exotic touch (for us western people) but far from FP status, imo. I would expect a better image quality and a more interesting expression from the woman and baby. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar - MPF (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special in the subject. Agree with Alvesgaspar: exotism is relative... Technical quality not the best.--Jebulon (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC) We have pictures of bugs, snakes, mammals. We have starling and Nefertiti in many flavours. The notion that people are "exotic" is exactly why having pictures like this makes them fellow humans. It is important to cherish what is considered exotic and get to know them. This is more relevant then bugging our front page with yac (yet another critter).[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azogues Ecuador from San Francisco 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2010 at 14:31:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by --Cayambe (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The town of Azogues in the Ecuadorean Andes. Azogues means mercury, for which there was a historic mining activity in the environs of the town.
Support -- Cayambe (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - needs a Spanish description (considering it is in a Spanish-speaking area!) - MPF (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Spanish text added to the file description. --Cayambe (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Correct, good quality picture. But nothing justifies the FP seal, IMO. By the way, there is an obvious ccw tilt. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Tilt corrected. --Cayambe (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I wish there were fewer clouds, though I know for the hundredth time someone will disagree with me, but otherwise I do like this photo of a city in the Andes. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marche des Lices mise en place 04.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2010 at 08:55:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Trizek - uploaded by Trizek - nominated by Trizek -- Trizek ^Blah 08:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trizek ^Blah 08:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Bonne qualité technique, atmosphère et lumière du petit matin extrêmement bien capturées. Malheureusement, la distortion ou l'inclinaison de la prise de vue est inconfortable. Aberration chromatique autour des réverbères et des feuilles d'arbre en haut à gauche, pourraient être rognées par la même occasion si on redresse l'image. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As above. Also, the objects in the foregroung are disturbing -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info J'ai essayé de faire quelque chose (I tried to do something with this picture) :

Alternate[edit]

Info Version redressée Straightened version --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please create a new subsection with the improved version. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's better like this ! Trizek ^Blah 21:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, no, sorry. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I believe this version to be much better than the other straightened version, I like the tilt, and think that it adds to the appeal. Must say that I don't think that it will get into FPX, but just voicing my opinion. –hover Fly | chat? 12:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Actiniaria.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 14:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Merculiano- restorated and uploaded by Citron - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love these. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though the types of anemones should be indicated somewhere: annotations, image description, or both. --Tintero (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diocletien Vaux1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 21:32:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me except the sculpture -- Jebulon (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{Neutral}~~ - rather oppressively dark. Will reconsider if brightened. - MPF (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for idea, you are right. I added a bit more light. --Jebulon (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, imho still too dark. Black background for a dark marble statue with a black foot seem not best to me. Could you upload an alternative with a different background? —DerHexer (Talk) 23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I know how to do... But I'll try, even I think a black background is better...--Jebulon (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Nickel electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 21:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the green stuff? Is it glowing? Oxidization? Some other substance? --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ah, sorry. The description isn't ready: the green stuff are nickel salts: Ni-sulfate and others salts = a rest from the electrolytical refining process. A proof for nickel :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oh, just curious. --IdLoveOne (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice and interesting.--Jebulon (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Citron (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although background is a bit too noisy, imho. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice composition. Jonathunder (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gil Eannes Âncora.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2010 at 20:30:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nsandre - uploaded by Nsandre - nominated by Nsandre -- Nuno Sequeira André (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nuno Sequeira André (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Former Hospital Ship Gil Eannes Anchor looking at the edge downwards at a background of water with fish where you can see the reflection of the ship. This ship was used in the 50s for support to the Portuguese codfish fleet in Newfoundland.
Question What is it? bamse (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a top view of a ship's anchor. Lycaon (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose not that I don't like ship anchors, but I just don't see what is depicted here (strange background...). Maybe a proper image description and categories could help. bamse (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the background is water, and this was taken leaning off the edge of the boat. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose Really, I cannot understand what is this thing... but sure it ll not be a featured picture in my opinion --Llorenzi (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unclear subject Cathy Richards (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toshiba T1000SE-IMG 4863-c.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2010 at 22:45:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Rama (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, needs to be rotated, imho. Sharpness in front could be better, also black background with black monitor looks a bit irritating to me. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request please white balance this. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any better? Rama (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did it for you, hope you don't mind (if you do just revert and I apologize). --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I am colour-blind, so that sort of situation can happen to me from time to time and I have difficulties sorting them out. Thank you again! Rama (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, color-blind? Too bad. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wide view to Aiguille Verte & Les Drus from Les Praz 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2010 at 00:51:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ximonic - uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximonic (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely pano, sadly, much of it is nothing but blackness. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture: sharp, lot of details, high resolution, good exposure and composition. The shadow in the foreground highlights the mountains. Yann (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral because of shadow/underexposure. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Great detail and quality, but the dark foreground is too imposing. I wonder if a smart crop solves the problem. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Support This version has much of the shadows cropped out. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hmm... Less dark area, yes. But I still find the composition nicer to my eye in the original picture - where the shadow area below closes the glowing mountain in the center. Matter of taste may it be. --Ximonic (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:5vor12.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2010 at 10:38:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by powerhauer - uploaded by powerhauer - nominated by powerhauer -- Powerhauer (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Powerhauer (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but not feature-worthy in my opinion, sorry; for starters, the clock is noticeably dirty, and there's light reflection on the twelve. The bottoms of the hands are also out of focus. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, unsharp Cathy Richards (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Not to be mean, but what's supposed to be special or interesting about this? The zoom is a bit dramatic, but... --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chopin polonaise Op. 53.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2010 at 03:23:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Frédéric Chopin - uploaded & nominated by Scewing
Support -- Scewing (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original 1842 autographed partiture for Polonaise in A flat, Op. 53, a musical masterpiece, one of Chopin's most popular compositions that has always been a favorite of the classical piano repertoire. The piece requires exceptional pianistic skills and requires virtuosity to be played at an appropriate level of quality. -- Scewing (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Exceptional document. Very good quality. Yann (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely nice ! The music is easy to read at such high resolution, but hard to play !!! Info the French words are "...dédiée à Monsieur Auguste Leo..." (A.Leo was an administrator (of the new railways) and a banker, a friend of Chopin). I corrected it in the description page.--Jebulon (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are some patches black and white? e.g. the top right corner. --99of9 (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Important historical document (even if I can't read it myself!) and good quality - MPF (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good image with high EV. Jonathunder (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Expedition 24 Crescent Moon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2010 at 15:23:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by an ISS Expedition 24 crew member - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info A last quarter crescent moon above Earth's horizon.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love the composition, but the black part is very noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice even with the slight noise. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is it possible to get more information about where above the planet's surface this was taken? Jonathunder (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The color of the earth's atmosphere is very nice, and both the moon and the background is very clear. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 08:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice picture, but noisy and oversaturated. IMHO the saturation of the original is sufficient and there is a needless file size explosion. Unfortunately the quality comes not back with the subsequent increase of the JPEG data.--Ras67 (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Homesewing.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2010 at 12:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A wonderful example of a parody emblem, highly usable as an illustration

Info created by Bo.peterson - conversion into a SVG Ogre - uploaded by Ogre - nominated by GerardM -- GerardM (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, bad joke, nothing to be featured here. Yann (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a joke, it is not meant as a joke. This picture represents a whole category of pictures that are neglected. Given that this template prevents me from removing it and it typically kills all further comments, I find this action problematic. GerardM (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I agree. My support vote is only meant to remove the FPX template -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Huh? Can someone please make a case here. What is the "whole category" of unrepresented images? The ones that only use two colours and simple shapes?? They don't sound feature-worthy to me. We have lots of featured diagrams, many are amazingly intricate, interesting, and valuable. This is not IMO. --99of9 (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this picture is part of the struggle around IP rights. The category is the one where people actioning for a particular purpose have created logos, imagery to strengthen their point. The aggression in what is an antrhomorphised sewing machine is wonderful imho. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this illustration follows the fpc guidelines. it is subject of a controversy and should be supported. besides sophisticated drawings and photographs, logos as these might achieve featured picture status.--Peter Weis (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as 99of9. — Lycaon (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Probably attempt to make some joke. But how it is successful...? --Karel (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I understand and respect what is being done here--it is not a joke nor intended to be--but in my opinion this does not fit the criteria for featured picture. Jonathunder (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all I care a QI, but never FP --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rila 7 lakes circus panorama.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2010 at 00:42:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Anthony.ganev - uploaded by Martyr - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{Support} --62.244.28.238 07:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)~~ sorry, no anon votes; please log in if you have a commons account[reply]
~~{Support|Weak support}~~ Oppose - nice pic, but slightly fuzzy at full size; also a little bit of chromatic aberration on top left snow patch (not serious though) - MPF (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC) . . . change vote; missed the flaws kaʁstn points out - MPF (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose not again, please. Just compare 1&2. Nothing changed [14] --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kaʁstn. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Une fente de la tour du ribat d'el Monastir 1.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 16:32:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ghabara - uploaded by Ghabara - nominated by Ghabara -- Ghabara (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ghabara (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small, only 1.280 × 960 --Llez (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Une fente de la tour du ribat d'el Monastir.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 16:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ghabara - uploaded by Ghabara - nominated by Ghabara -- Ghabara (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ghabara (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small, only 1.280 × 960. --Llez (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Confirmed results:

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

File:Quince سفرجل Coing.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 16:47:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ghabara - uploaded by Ghabara - nominated by Ghabara -- Ghabara (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ghabara (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small, minimum is 2 megapixels. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flower fleur زهرة.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 16:50:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ghabara - uploaded by Ghabara - nominated by Ghabara -- Ghabara (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ghabara (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirmed results:

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

File:Serengeti Loewin.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2010 at 13:50:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral grass stalks --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply natural --Thermos (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very hard to get a lion without grass stalks. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, once again!--Citron (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing background, not so good crop, flash reflextion in Lions eyes. C'mon ppl, try to give them some luxflux peace. --Mile (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I accept that grass stalks must be hard to avoid, but one in front of the subject makes it hard to feature. --99of9 (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Grass does not bother me --Muhammad (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral despite the grass stalks, it's very nice Cathy Richards (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Question Nice, it looks like a poster, but what kind of camera do you use? The fur tends to seem less sharp than it could be in your pics. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking this interesting question. All camera and lens data is found in the metadata. At 400 mm focal length, 10.8 m distance and f/5.6 the depth of field is just 150 mm. Thus only the eyes and the mouth are in focus leaving the back of the head and the body unsharp. Besides the fact there was not enough light for a smaller aperture I think the limited DOF guides the viewers attention to the eyes and the mouth. Most of my other pictures are shot from a bigger distance which automatically leads to a bigger DOF. --Ikiwaner (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not Featured-quality composition. Steven Walling 00:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grass on the front. Yann (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ikiwaner (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serengeti Impala1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 05:23:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated Ikiwaner (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose horns are cropped out at the top, a knockout criterion imo --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - interesting image, but I agree with Cat on the crop. Is a recrop possible? Jonathunder (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Horns cropped. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Ikiwaner (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bougainvilliers 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 12:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks unsharp to me despite ISO 200 (NR?). A more precisely identification is necessary, too. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is Commons, not Wikipedia, our focus is on image quality, not details unrelated to image quality like taxonomy, see rule #7 above. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto kaʁstn, plus bad artifacts in the blown areas between the flowers. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--Jebulon (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wide view to Aiguilles de Chamonix & Aiguille du Midi from Les Praz.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2010 at 22:47:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ximonic - uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Similar to the previous picture of Aiguille Verte and Aiguille du Dru in evening light. These mountains have been captured from the same place in the same evening. This picture might have the same kind of shadows below, but at least I don't want to be hiding this panorama any more. -- Ximonic (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximonic (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still same problem as before. Do you have HDR? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Sorry, I don't have HDR takes of these exact sceneries. Yet I have taken some other HDR pictures of the area (probably including these mountains too). -- Ximonic (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good as the other one. Yann (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amber-coloured sarcophagus-type casket in Malbork.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2010 at 21:08:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by myself —DerHexer (Talk) 21:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —DerHexer (Talk) 21:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given the circumstances, a fine picture as far as image quality is concerned but not featurable for me. Lighting and background are not ideal and the angle seems arbitrary (it is almost exactly from the side but not quite which makes it unattractive to me. I think I would have preferred a viewpoint at 30-45 degree and about the same height.) bamse (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ghabara (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alpinia purpurata.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2010 at 20:57:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by myself, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —DerHexer (Talk) 20:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor background, particularly that diagonal dark shadow at the right and the two black bars at the bottom. - MPF (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Yes, this could've been taken from a different angle (the BG seems to be lily pads), but the detail in the flower's pretty good, highlight's blown though. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image was taken from a bridge downwards if I remember correctly. There hardly another position would have been possible. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems very nice and very clear. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 08:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pope Benedictus XVI january,20 2006 (2) mod.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 03:33:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sergey Kozhukhov - uploaded by Megapixie - nominated by Spongie555 -- Spongie555 (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spongie555 (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Seems promising, yet very unsharp, noisy, when viewed in full size. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition and quality doesn't convince me --AngMoKio (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - some bad colour artefacts, e.g. the lower part of the chair back, probably resulting from the odd colour balances of the original - MPF (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everybody above. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ghabara (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a requirement, but a short explanation for an oppose vote is generally appreciated.--Jebulon (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - it's a bit simple for my taste.--Ghabara (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tagelöhnerhaus qtl1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2010 at 11:12:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info House of a day labourer from 18th century Germany. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --HaTe (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mylius (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is good, but I don't like the composition (tight crop, nothing outstanding to me) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As kaʁstn. --Karel (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough wow for an FP. Lycaon (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Ghabara (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral it is well balanced image.. but it does not look outstanding.. Ggia (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nikon D200 front (aka).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2010 at 18:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Aka - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but a piece of the strap and shadow are cutoff. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support without doubt --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 22:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mylius (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about the lace of the camera... --Llorenzi (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I pointed that out... --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I hate the unnecessary downscaling by studio shots like this. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice camera!--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, shadow and lace cut. --Tintero (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Panorama vom Gornergrat-Zermatt.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2010 at 17:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality, but I think it needs to show more to the right. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zenaida macrouraAWP17AA.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2010 at 17:48:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John James Audubon C. 1830, digitally restored (original) - uploaded by Cotinis - nominated by IdLoveOne -- IdLoveOne (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Slightly under 2MP (1.88MP). --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good restoration, but the file is little... --Citron (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Audubon pics are becoming available on commons at vastly higher resolution (e.g. this one, 177 MPX); see Category:The Birds of America - MPF (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, that is an impressively large file, and still has all its detail. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --Schnobby (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per my comment above, not because this one is particularly bad, but because some of the others from the same book are so much better - MPF (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Size maybe but this is one of the best restorations I've seen. --IdLoveOne (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:JFK with Caroline on the Honey Fitz, 1963.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 05:35:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cecil W. Stoughton (1920 - 2008) - uploaded by Scewing - nominated by Scewing -- Scewing (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Scewing (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As if this photo is mostly in the scope of VI project, imo.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy and poor composition. --Citron (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Commons photo, no reason for FP nomination. --Karel (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What "Commons photo" means? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common photo means, that there in nothing extra interesting on it from composition or quality point of view. And I believe, that a fact, that some wellknown politician is subject of image must not be reason for FP nomination. --Karel (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose extremely noisy. Lycaon (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality of the image unfortunately not up to FP requirements. --Petritap (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not interesting, too common, and is not a quality image either. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 08:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice composition, but poor quality Cathy Richards (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not great quality, but historical. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luebeck-St Marien vom Turm von St Petri aus gesehen-20100905.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 00:43:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mylius - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Mylius -- Mylius (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The towers are as skewed as visible, that's not the photographer's fault. ;-) --Mylius (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mylius (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice pic, but (as all too usual!) spoilt by the scaffolding . . . why do they always put some on?!? - MPF (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it might look like it, the scaffolding is not on the church itself but on a building that's not directly related to it. But I agree, it's become increasingly difficult over the years to find a cityscape without scaffoldings or cranes, no matter where you go in Europe. --Mylius (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe a bit overexposed, but nice composition and good quality --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful, but the building's not entirely shown... --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how want you avoid it? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is as much as you get of the building as possible unless you use a plane. The other side, apart from the fact that there's no tower you could photograph from, is covered by even higher buildings. --Mylius (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support For image detail quality (though a cutoff subject is generally seen as a deal-breaker as far as I know). --IdLoveOne (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As MPF. Common image, good guality but not enough for FP. --Karel (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tight crop Cathy Richards (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soleil couchant sur le Vercors.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 05:27:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, too dark for my liking - MPF (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is not very good IMO. I'd rather see the sky and the ground landscape together.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's supposed to be dark, and dramatic. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Karel (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose undefined focus Cathy Richards (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SvetiSedmochislenitsiChurch-Sofia-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2010 at 22:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sveti Sedmochislenitsi (The Seven Saints) church in Sofia.

Info Sveti Sedmochislenitsi church, Sofia. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really clever putting thumbnails of images in the image notes. =) --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mylius (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - (and ditto to IdLoveOne) - MPF (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharpness, some chromatic aberrations and distortions, hard shadows at the right --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I like that image. I tried to fix most raised issues in File:SvetiSedmochislenitsiChurch-Sofia-3_changed.jpg Feel free to do whatever you want to do with. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. So can we change the photo with the retouched one?--MrPanyGoff (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can simply add a new section with the alternative version. That should be easier than downloading “my” image and uploading over yours which would cause some trouble with already given votes. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1[edit]

Weak support, this one's brighter, the angle's good and bad because it shows off more, but at the same time you don't get a really good shot of one particular side. Also I think there's too many people. --IdLoveOne (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support PS I'd think this would be better nominated as a new pic; as an alt., it's only got 3 days left for voting and hardly anyone will scroll this far down the page either to see it - MPF (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2009 07 07 arne mueseler 0035.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 20:30:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Arne mueseler - uploaded by Arne mueseler - nominated by Arne mueseler -- Arne (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arne (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Who are these people? --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Left to right: Toni Stoos (Director of Museum der Moderne Salzburg, Austria) and Dieter Schwarz (Director of Kunstmuseum Wintherthur, Switzerland) at a press conference --Arne (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support It's framed nicely, but I don't think a photo where two guys are just sitting down answering questions should have motion blurring in it. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flickr - Wikimedia France - PRE.2009.0.237.1.IMG 1998.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2010 at 09:51:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rama - uploaded by Boing-boing - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I wanted to support this, but what's with the DOF? It's much fuzzier on the top than the bottom. --IdLoveOne (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not possible to have the camera exactly perpendicular to the plan of the necklace, hence this effect. Rama (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm guessing you did a digital angle correction? Can you upload the original also? --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:La coupole vitrée de la faculté de medecine de tunis.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 16:40:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ghabara - uploaded by Ghabara - nominated by Ghabara -- Ghabara (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ghabara (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Removed FPD tag and excessive noms, see talk page. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Info -- @IdLoveOne: you cannot choose which pictures are to be removed and which are to stay. In these case, the FPD are to be applied to the newer nominations and later removed by the bot. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the 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) 05:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le grand mosqué de monastir.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 16:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ghabara - uploaded by Ghabara - nominated by Ghabara -- Ghabara (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ghabara (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Removed FPD tag and excessive noms, see talk page. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Info -- @IdLoveOne: you cannot choose which pictures are to be removed and which are to stay. In these case, the FPD are to be applied to the newer nominations and later removed by the bot. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now, getting down to business, this is good, but it probably won't pass because it's also too small, plus the apparent lens flare in the upper right. I would probably support a larger version with the perspective angle corrected because it seems undesirably tilted to the left to me here. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the 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) 05:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Радуга.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 17:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created, uploaded & nominated by VadimV
Oppose Below 2 megapixels.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only barely: 1.92MP. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I had to bring my loupe to actually see the rainbow. Laitr Keiows (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good lighting, but the rainbow, which is the subject here, is only very partially expressed. Small resolution and file size. --Cayambe (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 16:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anguis fragilis (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2010 at 07:40:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Trachemys - uploaded by Trachemys - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trachemys (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd prefer a wider DOF, but excellent nonetheless. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'd prefer a wider DOF, composition is imho not best. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Want to see more of the snake. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Want to see more of the snake, it is not even a snake so more details are in order --GerardM (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a lizard, not a snake, FYI. Steven Walling 00:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - w:Legless lizard w/e (I guess you can see the difference in the eyes here, circle not slitted). --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not Featured-quality composition or lighting. See this photo of the same subject for comparison. Steven Walling 00:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for composition Laitr Keiows (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ayu-Dag or Medved-gora (Bear mountain).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 21:27:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Zhuk (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zhuk (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really nothing special. --Llorenzi (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really disagree, I don't travel to tropical-looking towns by both mountain and sea too much. Crop the bottom and put "Wish you were here!" in the upper left Lol. (I'm not actually saying crop it) --IdLoveOne (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice pic (though it isn't tropical-looking . . . actually, the Crimea gets decidedly cold in winter ;-) - MPF (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support quality maybe not the best, but very nice lightning and good composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good lightning, nice colors -- 46.118.198.182 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please log in before voting --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crepuscular rays 09-11-2010 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 00:08:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The crepuscular rays you are looking at are very special. Some of the rays are originatined at the Sun as they usually do while others coming upward from the lake. The light source for these rays is the Sun's reflection. It is rather rare to see such rays. Here's a close up of that amazing network of light
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing Awesome picture! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Jebulon (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just waw! --Citron (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jonathunder (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great mood, good placement of the sun center --Ikiwaner (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh Wow!!! What a magnificent picture! Kooritza (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish I was there! How did you capture the light so nicely? :) Warmly, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 08:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dendroica coronata PJC.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 00:35:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's ok, the background is very boring though. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question You mean the mixture of twigs that is boring or the sky? --Cephas (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For me.. it seems that some editing has made and the backgroud removed.. but I like this image. and I support it. Ggia (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, but I find the pure blue sky boring, it doesn't give the bird more eye appeal, I don't see a point for that one twig on the left and I would've liked if the bird were bigger and sharper (I'm spoiled by ENWP's insanely high bird standards). --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - MPF (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support another nice picture --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Melo aethiopica 001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2010 at 16:46:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez| - uploaded by Llez| - nominated by Llez| -- Llez (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melo aethiopica, Volutidae, length 24 cm, originating from the region Indonesia - Malaysia - New Guinea. Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
From left to right: Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view. -- Llez (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Llez (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- MJJR (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support So encyclopedic — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 18:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Metro Paris Mp73.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2010 at 13:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ikonact - uploaded by Ikonact - nominated by Ikonact -- Ikonact (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... But invisible today because of a (new) strike...--Jebulon (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, very simple --The Photographer (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! If only we could get every time SVG drawings that simple! Sting (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May be it is not enough elaborated for featured picture but I think it is a little bit exaggerated to say "very simple". I do not mind if it is not nominated but please, be constructive and say how it can be improved.--Ikonact (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low numbers of nodes and vertices. The illustration does not have an enlightening effect, a photo could be better. I do not see anything really interesting to be highlighted. In general, it is a good job but not enough to secure qualification. I believe the author could add description to the parties, cuts and show a perspective that a photograph can not accomplish. Thanks. --The Photographer (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks --87.64.0.239 12:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could do with an expanded description and/or annotations to say what the various parts are (particularly those things either side of the wheels) - MPF (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SBB RBDe 560 Train des Vignes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 20:37:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info SBB "NPZ" trainset with unique "Train des Vignes" livery on the very scenic line from Vevey to Puidoux-Chexbres, high above lake Geneva.
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great composition as always! --Aqwis (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't feel confident of the quality. And the subject is a bit small. But the composition is too good to oppose here. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What is it that you don't like about the quality? I know the sharpness isn't perfect, but I didn't want to downscale the picture just to make it look sharper. --Kabelleger (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - yeah, the sharpness could be better. And downscaling isn't good because the train would be smaller. So, sorry, I can't give more than a neutral. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The train is rather small indeed, but the scenic landscape is an essential part of the picture. Very nice composition! -- MJJR (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background unsharp and too foggy. --Karel (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've tweaked the light levels slightly in the hope that will address the 'foggy' quality; undo if not liked - MPF (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really nothing special. --Llorenzi (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Kind of busy composition, might've been better if taken around twilight. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piper Cub Góraszka 2.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2010 at 15:54:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and best wishes from the Czech Republic. Wolf (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Excellent quality, however, I find the undercarriage so close to the trees distracting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - CA and disturbing composition - see w:lead room. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What California?? - MPF (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with MPF here, it takes only five more seconds to write “chromatic aberration” instead of CA. Diti the penguin — 07:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright, feel free to do so. I'm a volunteer and I'm going to write how I want to. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 10:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Go argue under your own pictures, not under mine, pretty please :) Wolf (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but underexposed. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:14-38-52-f-giro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2010 at 13:27:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please rename the file to some meaningful name? Yann (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please, no more tunnels on FPC unless they're really, really outstanding. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree, this is interesting to me. --IdLoveOne (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with The High Fin Sperm Whale. --Karel (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we have had tons of tunnels lately, but since this image is so nice I could support it with an expanded description of what we are looking at and what makes it significant (more EV). Jonathunder (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - ditto to Jonathunder, would be willing to support if it had a detailed description - MPF (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the High Fin Sperm Whale and Jonathunder --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:14-16-16-f-giro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2010 at 13:29:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please rename the file to some meaningful name? Yann (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. --Karel (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting structure, looks old. --IdLoveOne (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not bad, but not special enough --Ikiwaner (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not special -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good colors --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:R M S Mulheim wreck s1 (1 of 3) hug.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2010 at 01:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality is very good, but I'm not sure about the lightning and the composition. Tight crop at the top and the bottom, some ruins are cut off at the left. The lightning is suboptimal imo too. The rocks on the right are too bright, at the left and bottom are hard (and a bit disturbing) shadows. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- I say again: according to the new rules only different versions of the same picture can be considered as alternatives in a given nomination. Different pictures must have a nomination of their own. At this moment, Mbz1 has 4 different active nominations. Please choose which are to be withdrawn. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the rule #12 states: "A different version of the same picture is not considered a new nomination and should be added as a new subsection, inserted after the original version.", but unless I am missing something nowhere it is said that "Different pictures must have a nomination of their own" and that I cannot add a different image as alternative, if I wish to. If there was such a rule, it would have been a stupid one. If I am missing something, may I please ask you to be so kind and to quote the exact rule?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to urge everybody to go here and voice their interpretation of the rules in question. Thanks. --Petritap (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tight crop. Lycaon (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't! –hover Fly | chat? 17:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like them both. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- I say again: according to the new rules only different versions of the same picture can be considered as alternatives in a given nomination. Different pictures must have a nomination of their own. At this moment, Mbz1 has 4 different active nominations. Please choose which are to be withdrawn. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's different versions of the same thing. And where did this one come from? I don't remember seeing that anywhere. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- General rules #11 and #12 above. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the rule #12 states: "A different version of the same picture is not considered a new nomination and should be added as a new subsection, inserted after the original version.", but unless I am missing something nowhere it is said that "Different pictures must have a nomination of their own" and that I cannot add a different image as alternative, if I wish to. If there was such a rule, it would have been a stupid one. If I am missing something, may I please ask you to be so kind and to quote the exact rule?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing more to say to someone who is not interested in understanding. Have fun and spam the whole FPC with dozen of alternatives if that is what you want. I'm out of this discussion because I can't stand the lack of intelectual honesty. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is an usual response of the one, who has nothing useful to add to an unconfirmed claim about the rules. About your increased rudeness I'd like to share with you a quote of my favorite philosopher w:Eric Hoffer, who said: “Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength” . --Mbz1 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to urge everybody to go here and voice their interpretation of the rules in question. Thanks. --Petritap (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I honestly try to understand what rules, if any I violated, but why you're asking others to comment, and do not comment yourself? After all you did oppose the nomination at least partly because in your opinion I violated the rules. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting scene, nice colors, ... and stupid restriction rule. Yann (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition + per Alves. --Petritap (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you oppose by alves's rude rant? No rules were violated. I asked a question on discussion page, and so far nobody explained to me what have I done wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Yann as well. Kooritza (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting scene, nice colors, perfect composition --Diligent (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very useful scene — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 17:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crazy rules, good picture --Muhammad (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:R_M_S_Mulheim_wreck_448_edit_1.jpg

File:Antidorcas marsupialis 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2010 at 16:34:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis) created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although a bit noisy (possibly because of sharpening) and eyes unluckily a bit underexposured. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and EV. --Petritap (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even I would prefer a front light.--Jebulon (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Citron (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Too warm --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SMP September 2010-2a.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 07:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The bay of São Martinho do Porto, west coast of Portugal. View from outside. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very nice composition, but the quality is not there IMO. Lots of blured rocks, in some places look as stitching errors.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Colors rather dull, and I agree about the focus stacking errors. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the one a couple of nominations below. If only the horizon were straight... Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama santaluzia nunoandre.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2010 at 19:49:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nsandre - uploaded by Nsandre - nominated by Nsandre -- Nuno Sequeira André (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nuno Sequeira André (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too dark in part; also too much sky, not enough foreground - MPF (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not best light, sorry. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as DerHexer and MPF. --Llorenzi (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree about the lighting and I usually don't mess with panos because other people are better at spotting things like stitching errors, but I like this bay. --IdLoveOne (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose underexposure Cathy Richards (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiger Swallowtail Butterfly.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 20:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by TristanTech - uploaded by TristanTech - nominated by TristanTech -- Tristantech (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tristantech (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp, out of focus, blown flowers, sorry but not up to the standards qualitywise. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 22:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bubo bubo sibiricus qtl1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2010 at 14:41:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portrait of a Siberian Eagle-owl cawing (not at me or my camera). Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flash lighting too harsh, unfortunately. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support While Moby Dick up here is generally right, I really like the outcome and I think it's a very good picture. Wolf (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and would have supported the one from my talk page too.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor thing's imprisoned in a tiny box. It needs to be sitting on a branch in a tree. And ditto to THFSW on the flash. - MPF (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could not agree more, but it is quite impossible to get such an action closeup of an owl sitting in a tree. --Quartl (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Difficult, but not impossible; it's been done by wildlife photographers - MPF (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice bird and good quality but unfortunate background. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting and somewhat a rare snap I suppose, but at the same time I don't think it was a "kodak moment" it seems angered. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot say if it was angered. If so, it was not at me. The owl was cawing constantly in 5-10 second intervals (that's how I got attracted to it). After I took my shots it continued cawing as before. --Quartl (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Classical sterotypical behaviour associated with distress in captivity - MPF (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support distracting background and reflections, but excellent quality Cathy Richards (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have enough birds to insist on natural-looking environments (unless of course a picture is about the cage a bird is in). --99of9 (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unnatural look due to flash. Ggia (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Since the image probably shows a distressed animal (I didn't realize this – thanks to MPF for pointing this out), I will of course withdraw my nomination. --Quartl (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Since some users critizise the unnatural background, here's a crop to the face without distracting elements, originally proposed by Mbz1. --Quartl (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support!--Mbz1 (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

File:Grau de Leucate 001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2010 at 11:39:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- 212.86.200.102 11:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez 11:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image is more interesting as a whole than zoomed in though. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avocado with cross section.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2010 at 19:11:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting really not optimal, I think. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why is the shadow on the left red-tinted and the shadow on the right blue-tinted? Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral illustrative composition. However it looks this was made with two images of a different white balance thus the tinted shadows. This is fixable if the raw image is still available. --Ikiwaner (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a good, educational picture and I know it's featured on ENWP, but some avocados could be arraigned more interestingly. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Improper color balance --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avocado with cross section edit.jpg

Info and Support Adjusted color balance --Muhammad (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better than the previous version. --Ikiwaner (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one better, not because of shadows but because of it being brighter makes it seem less like it's oxidizing. Still, can't stand avocados. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 04:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add size and variety to description. Lycaon (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Muhammad (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Useful image but not with an FP wow IMO. Lycaon (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better but why size not bigger? --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It meets the size requirements --Muhammad (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink

The chosen alternative is: File:Avocado_with_cross_section_edit.jpg

File:Glasshouse and fountain at lalbagh.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2010 at 19:14:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice crisp detail, great symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! no distortion visible, intense colours too --Ikiwaner (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture, great place.--Cayambe (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small imho. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Berthold. Lycaon (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikiwaner.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose much too small (see Berthold Werner) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2,034,000 PX - that's above the lower size limit; agreed only just, but I don't think "much too small" is fair. - MPF (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Technically it is within the limits, but for an image with a lot of details one would expect a larger resolution, hence my comment of too small. Lycaon (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Idk, I think I'd like to see this bigger also, interesting colors but it's hard to tell what it is (and it might be cut off on the sides). --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Big size gets my full support --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It still meets the size requirements --Muhammad (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sepioteuthis sepioidea (Caribbean Reef Squid).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 10:19:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nhobgood - uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - particularly as located wild, not in an aquarium - MPF (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Good picture, but where does the lattice design come from, seen in high resolution in the background? --Llez (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, strange.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have experimented with different sharpening levels and I think it comes from over sharpening. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request Can someone soften this a little? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support After corrections --Llez (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good now. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Squid FTW. Steven Walling 06:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's very hard to take a picture like this. :) Well done. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 08:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm with Llez. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Váša pond near Milevsko (6).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2010 at 20:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Chmee2 (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very unsharp and heavy chromatic aberrations, a bit too dark imo too. The idea is very good and the composition not bad, but you should either leave room at bottom for having the horizon in the middle of the picture or use the rule of thirds. You unluckily did neither of that. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some technical problems, namely per Carshten, but they're pretty minimal and hidden by the colors in the image itself and I like this silhouetted image. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors --Zhuk (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The clouds have my taste. :) Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 08:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting colors, reflection and golder ratio with the first tree on the right row. --Aktron (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. Lycaon (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, trees too dark for my liking - MPF (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kaʁstn Ggia (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose imho too dark and ca. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]