Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2013

Image:RBI-RBZ-Wien-DSC 0607w.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2013 at 16:15:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by P e z i - uploaded by P e z i - nominated by P e z i -- P e z i (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P e z i (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting, colors, and composition (though would prefer just a little more at the left). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... prefer just a little more at the left" me too! Unfortunately this was eaten by perspective correction. --P e z i (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great composition but the distortion is a little too obvious at the edges. Can something be done about it? Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the bottom right corner: This is really a strech limo, I can upload a crop out of original image if you don't believe. --P e z i (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I could see that, but just to its left is a hatchback that looks unnaturally long. I also see it in the clouds near the top. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Alfa Romeo looks natural to me. Also the entrance of the building in the back. For the clouds: Let's take into consideration that is a wideangle shot (14mm @ full frame) with perspective correction. And the top of the building to the right is shaped like it looks; compare File:Raiffeisenzentrale-DSC 0603w.jpg --P e z i (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that was what the top of the building looked like. However, I still both the Alfa and the limo look distorted, as do the leaves above them, and the clouds near the top of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not a really good composition: the cars but especially the lamps and the road sign in the far left edge is disturbing, the distortions in the edges are to strong here and I see nothing special about this picture --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very bad composition --Pava (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am also not fully convinced of the composition, but balancing vote due to formulation "very bad composition". BTW: Could you please clarify Pava, what is "very bad" and give the uploader some hints what he can do better? Nonetheless light and image quality is at a very high level thus a support vote is justified. To the composition: The crop is carefully choosen, for me two aspects are slightly distracting but cannot changed by the photographer: The street lamps do not integrate well into the composition. Their position on the glass front seems to be somehow random to me. The street signs at the very left bottom are distracting. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Yikrazuul (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Wladylaw, poor crop in the bottom left, cars not really helping, lighting soso, not a FP to me, sorry. Poc o² 21:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /St1995 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monopteros in February 2013.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2013 at 14:26:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Monopteros in Munich's Englischer Garten during winter. All by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I shall have cropped a bit at bottom because the dynamics is rather upward nevertheless I like it -- Christian Ferrer 18:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Everything is perfectly in place. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good trees but monuments and the rest is no for FP. It's not clear what the center of camera lens, the monument are out of focus --Pava (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nothing special (no wow). Yann (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thanks for your review though! What makes this image special in my eyes is the fact that it shows how one of Munich's prime monuments becomes a popular hill for going sledding during winter. This also elucidates the special connection between Münchner and their English Garden. And from a formal point of view: I like the diagonal created by the people on the hill. But I guess I'm biased, both as the photographer of this image and as a Münchner. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're absolutely entitled to your oppinion and so, don't get me wrong, it's really fine with me if you oppose, but would you please elaborate a bit on your reasons? Thanks --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Some wow for me because, from the distance, it looks like a winter painting from Pieter Brueghel (the Elder). Nice composition and mood. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /St1995 21:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kowloon Waterfront, Hong Kong, 2013-08-09, DD 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2013 at 20:37:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info MTR Kowloon Station in Union Square at the International Commerce Centre skyscraper, Hong Kong. All by me, Poc o² 20:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love the colors - could anything be done with the overexposed whites on the buildings? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded to mitigate this issue. I have to say that it was very challenging to take this shot and develop it. The dynamic range was huge, a lower exposure time would have guided to problems in the lower half of the picture. Poc o² 19:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good but per the King --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's ok for expo but sorry the left is leaning out a bit --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was really "a bit" :) Anyhow, new version uploaded Poc o² 21:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ok now and congratulation for this very good composition, the reflection of the bulding at left is perfect for balancing the composition --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good editing job imo. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support An impressive photo and great architecture. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be nice if you could remove some jagged edges (notes added) and add geolocation. Thank you, --Ivar (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Poc o² 21:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great now. Yann (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support イントレピッドサンダー (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding capture. Can't believe I was at the same time at the same place and didn't see it this way. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 08:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Map of Paris by Claes Jansz. Visscher - Harold B. Lee Library.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2013 at 19:15:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Claes Jansz. Visscher - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 07:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chaotic and it is nice to see.. and, despite being at the highest levels of resolution, do not think this picture suitable for FP. Try with IQ (for me)--Pava (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This picture cannot become a Quality Image - Sadly, C.J. Visscher is/was no wikipedian... I'd like to defend this nomination though: Historical maps are a first-rate source not only for historians. The quality of the scan here is outstanding. Providing access to valuable material like this is what makes Commons so special. Just my 2c ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral May be this can be tried as Valuable image or VI? --Dey.sandip (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 10:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 06:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 08:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Triton (artist's impression).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2013 at 20:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by L. Calçada, uploaded/nominated by St1995 20:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 20:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not a fan of "spacy" images, and therefore I generaly don't vote, but I oppose this one because featuring an "artist impression" in dangerous for a further encyclopedical use.--Jebulon (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer true images from Triton. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a File:Voyager 2 Neptune and Triton.jpg? St1995 16:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination St1995 16:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Artist’s impression of a vampire star and its victim.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2013 at 19:57:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO/M. Kornmesser/S.E. de Mink, uploaded/nominated by St1995 19:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 19:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice fantasy, but not FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brihadeeswara temple.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2013 at 11:28:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info This is also WLM 2013 Winner in India. Created by Mugilkmv - uploaded by Mugilkmv - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Very beautiful, though a bit overprocessed IMO. Also, quality is not the best, but can't complain when it's 75 MP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the quality isn't ok for me: very noisy and stron CAs. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise in sky --The Photographer (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --These are stitched photos from negatives/slides, right? I like a lot the colors and the mood of this pano but unfortunately there are too many flaws at this point: a lot of grain everywhere, stitching problems, loss of details in dark areas. If the author has the raw files and if he agrees I can try to bring this image to the level of quality it can pretend. Just send me those raw files. Sting (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not aware of the author, hence I can not get the RAW files. --Dey.sandip (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. I saw now that with only one contrib (this picture), no discussion, I doubt we will hear from him soon. A pity for this image. Sting (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy. St1995 21:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 14:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Powell with Marina 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2013 at 07:24:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Lake Powell with Marina and rock formations in the background near Page
created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 08:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC) very nice composition. Schön harmonische Flächenverteilung und Linienführung.[reply]
Support Very nice. I think in this case a cloudy day is actually better, because on harshly lit sunny days you can't prevent yachts from blowing out without losing shadow detail. Would prefer just a tiny bit more on the bottom, otherwise great. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've slightly extended the crop at the bottom. IMHO it should not become wider now because the line composition (as pointed out by Ralf) especially at the bank should be preserved. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty pleasant composition. Well done --Dey.sandip (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak support a bit low wow for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition but dull colors. also there is not much wow to the image. Amada44 ^{talk to me} 16:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{Oppose}} Per above. —Mono 02:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
- To the "wow" (cannot change your personal Wow perception) - but for me motive and background have enough wow - it's not an everyday shot (at least not for me) To the colors: I see no reason to artifically pimp the colors here. As the King pointed out: the day was cloudy, and the diffuse light and the structure of the clouds helps to bring out the surface of the yachts. I really like the soft light and soft colors in the clouds and on the landscape, further post-processing would destroy it. The light comes from my back and imho well lightens the scenery. @Amada44: Although it is technically possible to increase the contrast ratio of an image it does not necessarily help to preserve the mood of a photo (as your editing of Mono Lake) and to reflect the moment accurately as possible. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tuxyso No, I don't think that increasing the contrast would improve the image. If the sun would have come out then I think you would have got a perfect featured image. Everything else in the image looks good. Just they lack of yellows an red from direct sunlight makes the image look a bit flat. Amada44 ^{talk to me} 08:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Amada44, thanks for your clarification. Especially for negative votes it is always beneficial for everyone to write a more detailed comment (as your last one). I guess (if King said) that with direct sunlight the whites of the yachts would have been problematic. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, unsharp. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cannot change your wow, but your assertion that the photo is unsharp is simply not true. Please take a more careful look on the photo. You even see structures in the grass and the single stripes from der American flag at the pier - so what is unsharp? This is an non-downscaled version in full sensor resolution. This crop has a resoultion of 12 Mpx! --Tuxyso (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enough wow for me :-) -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support イントレピッドサンダー (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 14:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Cap San Diego-DSC 0417.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2013 at 14:57:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by P e z i - uploaded by P e z i - nominated by P e z i -- P e z i (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P e z i (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support hier ist der theatralische Effekt mal nicht durch Software herbeigezaubert worden. Sehr schöne Stimmung und den richtigen Moment abgewartet. --Ralf Roleček 16:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice contrast. ~~You don't see these kinds of days very often in SoCal.~~ --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized this is not San Diego. ;) I would suggest moving it to a different title to avoid confusion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the possible confusion (and agree any reasonable move), but in both german and englisch WP "Cap San Diego" leads to the page of the ship ... --P e z i (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ The light is very nice, especially the interesting black-white contrast between ship and sky. But two aspects are disturbing for me (one fixable, one not): 1. I would definitely crop out the part of the red ship at the very right which moves out of the photo. 2. Your shooting position is not optimal considering the background: The office tower at the right is nice, but parts of the ship hide an important church of Hamburg, the St. Catherine's Church. The best placement would be between tower and church. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ja, sehr gut, I remember this one. --Ivar (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i agree about the red ferry, it is disturbing. I would propose a crop. I think that the shooting position was the only possible, I have not been in Hamburg for many year. But as I rember, it's very difficult to find possible locations to take photos from on the south side of the river, and I (looking at the satellite image) see no option to take a picture from a better angle from a public place.ArildV (talk)
As Tuxyso's and your proposal of cropping the red ship convinced me I've uploaded a new version (BTW also removed rest of crane). --P e z i (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work on the crop. I made up my mind and changed to support. The light/dark contrast is really nice here and colors come out well. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too flat sea, too dark, chaotic composition and main subject covered by too many annoying things. Let us remember that we are in FP.--Pava (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: The "sea" is the river Elbe at Hamburg and the flat water is the proverbial "calm before the storm". Darkness comes from a rising thunderstorm and was the mood I tried to catch. Composition couldn't be influenced very much if you look at georeference. And for the last point: You are right, I should have cleaned up the pier before taking a photo of the ship :) --P e z i (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that you've done something wrong, I just said to me why this is not FP, there are other applications on QI. could support it. --Pava (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much - but this IS already QI. --P e z i (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 11:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support イントレピッドサンダー (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 05:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Industrie- en poldermolen de rat.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2013 at 19:28:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Baykedevries - uploaded by Baykedevries - nominated by Baykedevries -- Baykedevries (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 04:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atardece en el campo.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2013 at 03:34:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by USERNAME -- Ivan2010 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivan2010 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many is this for you now? Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2013 (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. . --Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Atardecer en la Habana.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2013 at 17:46:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ivan2010 - uploaded by ivan2010 - nominated by ivan2010 -- Ivan2010 (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivan2010 (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has a resolution significantly lower than 2 megapixels.

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.

— Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villeneuve-lès-Maguelone, Hérault 12.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2013 at 17:23:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is an intensely boring photo to me. I have read the description yet fail to see how this contains any “wow” at all. 131.137.245.207 17:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral interesting landscape from France but not really wow. (Dust spot should be removed anyway) --P e z i (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lacking that something extra normally sought here on FPC. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no Wow for me. Pleclown (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting composition. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villeneuve-lès-Maguelone, Hérault 05.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2013 at 06:21:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. Pleclown (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:12-03-17-aktstudien-nuernberg-by-RalfR-31.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2013 at 15:19:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Ralf Roleček 15:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 15:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is another similar version already featured --The Photographer (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer. --Vamps (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

okok, ich habe das übersehen. ziehe zurück. --Ralf Roleček 17:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breakers - Fuerteventura.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2013 at 12:52:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Green CA at the far right and left. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks --Llez (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 11:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add a description. Yann (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 10:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 17:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Needle Galaxy 4565.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2013 at 11:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ken Crawford - uploaded by Planet Herald - nominated by Planet Herald -- Planet Herald (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Planet Herald (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 17:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Casque orné 4ème siècle Musée Novi Sad Colisée Rome Italie.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2013 at 18:03:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the Roman Army - photographied, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Following the (good) advice of one of us, I nominate this picture of a rare object: a 4th-century (CE) jewelled ridge Roman helmet. This piece is from the Muzej Vojvodine of Novi Sad in Serbia, and was on display (aug.2013) in a temporary exhibition about the Constantine era at the Colosseum of Rome, Italy.-- Jebulon (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, very nice :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 07:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 14:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 18:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 02:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

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

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by --The Photographer (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 11:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fortress of Guaita 2013-09-19.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2013 at 16:53:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Guaita fortress, San Marino. Created and uploaded by Max Ryazanov, nominated by Ivar (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess it could be the first FP of San Marino. --Ivar (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 19:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 20:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Very nice composition and subbject, but sudden loss of quality in the bottom left area, Poc o² 20:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 09:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 02:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kalifornischer Ziesel Yosemite 2013.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2013 at 14:52:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info California Ground Squirrel in Yosemite National Park photographed in front of rocks
all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blurred part in the front is a problem. Yann (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of the front do you mean? IMHO DoF is OK and a larger f-stop had increased the noise. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe he is referring to the blurred branch in front. I noticed it as well, but felt it was not too distracting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose branch is distracting --Vamps (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tuxyso (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ixora flowers 4.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2013 at 20:13:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, edited, uploaded and nominated by ArionEstar (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2013 (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: strong overexposure, visible chromatic noise all over the picture, improvable crop and lackness.

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.

Poc o² 20:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upper Antelope Canyon People 2013.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2013 at 23:04:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Tuxyso (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the people are blurred. The crop isn't optimal too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition, average technical achievement. This image is definitly not better than this one File:USA 10096-7-8 HDR Antelope Canyon Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg which is already a FP. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but both photos are not compareable. Please keep your comparisions fair. 1. different motive 2. much higher resolution of my photo (3,1 Mpx vs. 16 Mpx).
  @Alchemist: IMHO the slight blurr underlines the movement of the people through the Canyon. The man stands at the edge of the photo - find it somehow interesting. My ultra wide angle lens was with 10mm at its maximum. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also sorry, but what isn't fair? The image is IMO not accommodate and the composition poor. This main point can't be compensate by a higher resolution. Otherwise we could delist all FP and replace them automatically by images with higher resolution. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Somehow the "Wow" factor is lacking. The colors/contrast look bland. I am in favor of including people for the purpose of providing a scale, but I don't think the two human elements are actually fitting well in the frame here. --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I see the composition might be a problem here. Sorry for disturbing. @Dey.sandip: You must be aware of oversaturation because the red at this place is rather exteme. Take a look in the color channels of other photos of this place. Nearly every photo is oversaturated. Even the mentioned FP File:USA_10096-7-8_HDR_Antelope_Canyon_Luca_Galuzzi_2007.jpg has this problem. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nude recumbent woman by Jean-Christophe Destailleur.jpg

File:Michelangelo's Pietà Saint Peter's Basilica Vatican City.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2013 at 18:21:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michelangelo - Photographied, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This new version of the Michelangelo's Pietà, one of the marvels on the human genius IMO. I know that we already have a Featured Picture of the same subject, but it is now a bit old (2008), and a bit small. The nominated version has double size. It seems to have a sufficient quality (better than the already feaured version IMO). Those who know the place know also how it is difficult to take such a photograph, without tripod nor flash, and through a glass...-- Jebulon (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --The contrast of the edited version is better but why did you clone out the lights' reflects? These are natural on this highly polished marble and contribute to the sensation of volume, partially lost in this edited one. Sting (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- overexposition.--Jebulon (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what I thought: it's only my opinion but I think they are perfectly acceptable because these burned areas are small, natural in respect of the glossy marble and the lightning condition (this is not a studio shot!) and I prefer them to a not so well cloned alternative. Did you shoot it in Raw? Sting (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perspectives to remove : drawing marble at right and the marble at left are leaning out a little bit. And also CAs (see notes) Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- CAs on horizontal lines? No, and I doubt it's focus fringing. May be the color cast of a different color-balanced light, probably a window visible in the reflect of Christ's left leg. See for example the blue patch at the extreme lower-right corner, as well as in several shadows. Sting (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- En effet, merci Sting. On voit d'ailleurs un peu de reflet bleu dans le coin inférieur droit. Pour la perspective, je ne vois pas l'erreur, ça me parait bon, compte tenu de ce que je ne suis pas pile en face de l'œuvre, il y a forcément un effet de profondeur. Pour les reflets, je peux essayer d'utiliser les deux images par empilement des couches. Profiter à la fois des bons reflets et du meilleur contraste. Ça vous irait ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Si tu as pris la photo en Raw et si tu l'acceptes, envoie-moi ce fichier et j'essayerai de l'améliorer avec DxO. Mais à mon avis la majorité de ces reflets sont brûlés ce qui personnellement ne me pose aucun problème dans le cas de cette photo parce que c'est naturel et n'est pas un défaut technique. L'autre FP est d'ailleurs pareil. Une erreur àma serait de les supprimer ou pire de les rendre gris. Sting (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeLook like a straight snap shot to me, Don't find much "wow" --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "snapshot" ? Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about.--Jebulon (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Until perspectives corrected. Sorry to insist but IMO the verticals of the little wall at left must to be straight. Me I see and I find it's a bit disturbing Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When looking at the picture at full size and presuming the background wall has been well constructed, you will in fact notice the photograph is (very) slightly CW rotated (but the lines are parallel). So it is the lower-left structure which is in reality and on location as well as the only one in the picture leaning leftwards. See notes I added. Sting (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination visiblement, le peuple n'est pas prêt... Restons donc à l'ancienne version.--Jebulon (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Il ne faut pas se décourager pour si peu, ce serait dommage car ta photo est de bonne qualité ;) Sting (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bien sur qu'elle est de bonne qualité ! ;)--Jebulon (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Libelula cubana.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2013 at 12:19:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by JOAQUIND -- JOAQUIND (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JOAQUIND (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Have you folks thought of insiting images placed here have to go through QI first? It would stop low quality images like this from showing up. 131.137.245.208 12:58, 2 December 2013 (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: Strong pixelation and noise, far from quality standards expected here.

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.

Poc o² 14:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girasol con Abeja.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2013 at 12:14:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by USERNAME -- JOAQUIND (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JOAQUIND (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2013 (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: Subject unsharp and strong overexposure in the background.

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.

Poc o² 14:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gente en Valparaíso 05.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2013 at 15:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alexxxos - uploaded by Alexxxos - nominated by Alexxxos -- Alexxxos (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexxxos (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too soft, nothing sharp, the quality isn't OK for an FP-image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Common image, no wow effect, bad quality → no FP St1995 17:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The persons in the shadow are to dominant.--XRay ^talk 08:07, 2 December 2013 (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: per the reasons above. J Kadavoor J e e 17:26, 2 December 2013 (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.

image:Enfrentando al desarrollo Tecnologico.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2013 at 21:14:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by USERNAME -- Ivan2010 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivan2010 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is crowded and distracting and there is a lot of chromatic aberration. Sorry! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is not OK St1995 22:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hard to depict clutter without cluttering the image, and this is no exception. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting, but the technical quality isn't ok. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2013 (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: per the reasons above. J Kadavoor J e e 17:32, 2 December 2013 (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:Päikesetõus Paukjärve vaatetornist.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2013 at 22:34:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tõnis Tuuder - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice atmosphere (pity about the blown highlights at the very top though). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 06:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown highlights at top, shadows of the background too much dark, and color of sky a bit disturbing for me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessing (~ per Christian Ferrer). — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessing. There are other good examples of "Estonian flag as a nature photo" which don't exaggerate the contrasts. Anonimski (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose weak composition imo, no relation between the forest and the background and sky (ok, I understand know the connection to the Estonian flag, but from a photographic point I am not convinced).--ArildV (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:13-08-08-hongkong-sky100-04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2013 at 20:25:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hong Kong Harbour, view to east at evening

Info all by -- Ralf Roleček 20:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 20:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the right the cut could be better, but we are at a great level overall, although the place is not exciting and I do not like --Pava (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am unconvinced by the composition. I feel like water dominates too much and the buildings are just there bordering the water. Zooming out would have produced a better composition IMO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the Picture with 24 mm, some minutes later. --Ralf Roleček 08:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm... in that case I think that vantage point just isn't the best place to capture a view of Hong Kong. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but no. There is something that doesn't do it for me. Pleclown (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flares over Fort Lee - Best Warrior 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2013 at 20:27:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Spc. Venessa Hernandez - uploaded and nominated by Marcus Qwertyus -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a glorification of war - "annual Best Warrior Competition" --Tuxyso (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- However, this should have a personality rights template added. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no comment -. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Tuxyso. Yann (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Comment style is advertising, subject is war ... --P e z i (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have quite a few actual advertisements/wartime propaganda that are Featured, you know. This is neither. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see people making political statements instead of judging the merits of the image. 131.137.245.209 13:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, every time an image comes up where I don't like the topic I should oppose it? Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your point. Changed to comment. --P e z i (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject / object of a photo is always part of assesments on FPC (impressive landscape vs. boring landscape). Beneath light and composition a lot of wow comes from the subject itself. If a subject is in no way appealing for me I surely oppose - as it was the case here. There is a red line for me when photo glorify the usage of weapons and war - as it is undoubtlessly the case here. Saffron Blaze, the diversity of opinions of users with different culturual backgrounds should not be condemned but appreciated with regard to the international orientation of Commons. For some people nudity is a red line, for others (like me) the glorification of war and so called Best Warriors --Tuxyso (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in a war. Nothing glorious about it. Still, I can see the merits in the photograph. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If I take a very high quality image or video of a murder or a rape, will it be featured only for my photographers' talents? I don't think, subject of a featured picture is important IMO. In more I am not against war photos or the those of military trainings, but here the soldiers looks to strike the pose for a good image in the purpose of glorification of war and warriors. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Christian Ferrer[reply]

131.137.245.208 13:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes exatly, a good photo is reality, not a strike : at the war you do not have time to strike the pose, this nomination is not a good photo of war Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Christian Ferrer[reply]

Looks like a good photo of the training that goes into preparing for war. It seems you hate war (as any rational person should) so you will oppose anything military, unless of course it shows them doing something horrific. I think that is an awkward position to make when we are supposed to celebrate excellence in photography as opposed to making political statements. 131.137.245.206 14:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against war and soldiers, I've been a soldier and now I'm part of the military reserve force of my country. But if we learn to the "Best Warriors" to stay on a point heightened in the middle of the night under a projector, what we teach to the worst soldiers : to dance the lambada on battlefields. It is not a real war scene, it is a direction and it is not credible. Nothing againts the photographer but I see nothing captivating in the composition and absolutely no encyclopaedic interest. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Christian Ferrer[reply]

Oups, I'm totaly wrong, it's not a war scene : it's a shooting range. A reason in more to not promote it, without the description, I shall have had difficulty in guessing. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Christian Ferrer[reply]

Oppose Poor quality, nothing featurable. I'm surprised that it needs to be discussed that long. --A.Savin 16:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except people aren't discussing the tecnical merits of the photo. If they were then perhaps you would have a point. 131.137.245.209 18:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, I talk too fast and too much, per A.Savin --Christian Ferrer 19:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is not sufficient imo. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:PL-Kolbuszowa, skansen 2013-08-04--16-25-48-002.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2013 at 18:23:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kroton - uploaded by Kroton - nominated by Kroton -- Kroton (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kroton (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow on whatsoever. At a moment this image (that I consider substantially more interesting) ended its candidate period with only 4 votes. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting composition. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panoramic view of Oia, Santorini island (Thira), Greece.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2013 at 21:55:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Mstyslav Chernov - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice viewpoint and use of wide-angle. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 07:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, only resolution could be higher, and one dust spot should be cloned out. --Ivar (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be happy if someone can do that. I don't know how. Tomer T (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 10:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Dust spot removed. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 17:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vamps (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice viewpoint. --محمد اسد حیات (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fiori di mandorlo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2013 at 23:28:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alessandro Zangrilli - uploaded by Alessandro Zangrilli - nominated by --Pava (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pava (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~average~~ good makro shot, but no wow. --P e z i (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 11:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not bad, but also not a FP. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp enough for an FP macro image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Cosmographie de Claude Ptolemée.djvu, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2013 at 22:05:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ptolemy, DJVU file created, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info I think this is an exceptionel document (manuscript of 454 pages). This book was the reference of the known world in the Roman Empire. Its rediscovery in Florence around 1400 lead to a new interest about geography, finally leading to the travels of Colombus and Magellan. This copy of the Latin translation by Jacobus Angelus was commissioned by Guillaume Fillastre, cardinal of Saint Marc, and the book bears his arms. This unique examplar includes 27 maps by a Danish cartographer, Claudius Claussøn Swart. IMHO, the Cosmography by Claudius Ptolemy is one of the book who has the most influence over the whole human History.
Info This should be considered like a set, and judged on the merit of the whole document, not only of the tumbnail.
Support -- Yann (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support High historical value, imho. St1995 11:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support though resolution could be better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ambiguous nomination IMO. I agree in assessing this front picture, but not the whole book "as a book", because here is the "Featured "pictures" candidates page". I think we should have a discussion about the .djvu files.--Jebulon (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not only pictures, there have been quite a number of drawings too. Yann (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Drawings are picture ! This is not.--Jebulon (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support imho ok --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support But we need fix a lot of things in FPC. Eg: Currently pictures from set nominations are not going to the Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/current month and will not appear for POTY. (?) J Kadavoor J e e 16:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeBecause of above (not convinced by all Yann's arguments), because I don't know what I should support (this page, the book ?), because it is here featured "PICTURES" candidates pages (.gif, and drawings or designs are pictures too, this is not), because this page (sorry, I can judge only this one), has a very bad quality. Please nominate this as a set of pages. Page 447 is not featurable for me. Please restore, and nominate this as a set of pages.--Jebulon (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument seems also weird to me. You are not supposed to judge a FPC only on the thumbnail, and you can access the whole document here: File:La Cosmographie de Claude Ptolemée.djvu. This could also be considered a set of pictures, which is accepted. But it obviously won't be practical to display the whole set at once. Yann (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bad (unsharp) scan isn't featured for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the resolution could be higher, but this document is unique and not publicly available. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gran Palacio, Bangkok, Tailandia, 2013-08-22, DD 74.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2013 at 23:36:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Buddhist monk resting in the Grand Palace, Bangkok, Thailand. All by me, Poc o² 23:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 23:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perspective issues, left and right are leaning out. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected You were right, thanks Poc o² 20:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better but the column at left (see note) seem to leaning out, and I think it is straight in reality --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New version Poc o² 21:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ok now --Christian ^{LYNX EYES} Ferrer (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support イントレピッドサンダー (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Composition issue IMO. If you are able to crop the useless part at right, and above all, add a bit of space in foreground (crop too tight), I may support.--Jebulon (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I performed the changes you asked for, what do you think? Poc o² 21:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support And you ? I think the pic is now better "balanced". But you were very unlucky with the weather during your stay in Thailand. A pity.--Jebulon (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And me? I wouldn't have done it if I were not convinced. Yes, you were right, it looks better now, also to me. The weather was actually better than I expected in the rain season. Everything is relative :) Poc o² 22:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adding the monk in the frame, actually adds to the appeal of the image --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acapulco fishermen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2013 at 23:35:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice action scene. Yann (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good storytelling. Barcex (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice action; but two people (at least) look on the camera instead of concentrating on the work. :( J Kadavoor J e e 05:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Jkadavoor, First of all, I am ok with yoour vote... However, I do want to point out that people looking at the camera is not in itself a fault. I chose this version precisely because of the fishermen looking at the camera, for it establishes a connection between the viewer and the subjects. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support イントレピッドサンダー (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 10:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:2013.08.04.-05-Ladenburg-Hauhechel-Blaeuling-Maennchen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2013 at 12:36:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support; but prefer File:2013.08.04.-04-Ladenburg-Hauhechel-Blaeuling-Maennchen.jpg as it looks to me more artistic. Details more here. J Kadavoor J e e 03:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry for spoiling the green wave Hockei, but I really find the crop too tight. We should let the poor thing breathe... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about this version? J Kadavoor J e e 02:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is better (composition, crop and sharpening) but a bit overprocessed IMO --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:03, 306 November 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Qflieger (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 17:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruila mõisa peahoone 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2013 at 06:39:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Ruila manor main building, all by Ivar (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Nice fall foliage, though I'm a bit uncomfortable at how tight the left and right crops are on the trees. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 11:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Left and right are leaning in Christian Ferrer 19:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Info New version with minor perspective fix uploaded. --Ivar (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support It seem to be ok. Christian Ferrer 11:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject nice but not spectacular, quality good, lighting pretty unconvient with long shadows covering half of the facade, not a FP to me, sorry Ivar, Poc o² 21:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadows across the front are unnecessary. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disturbing shadows. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 10:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mauterner Bridge 4731.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2013 at 17:49:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Idobi (talk) - uploaded by Idobi (talk) - nominated by -- Idobi (talk)
Support -- Idobi (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit artsy (which could become a problem here), but I like it. Of course it does have encyclopedic value. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes artistic and also tilted and with red CAs --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWhat's the problem with being artistic, if it has encyclopaedic value and sufficient technical quality? Many a times it feels, that there is too much emphasis on quality (The reference always used for argument is Commons images may be used for high quality printing and other high resolution media purposes). Well, I would like to get some statistics on how many of these FPs are actually being used by People and Establishments in the above-mentioned way. That would help us call a spade, a spade. I think we need a serious revision of the FPC Criteria, nowadays many images with average and no "wow" getting promoted just because there's tons of resolution, taken in broad daylight or used softwares amply to correct every flaws noticed out of pixel-peeping. I tend to get confused with the definition of what is featurable, because in almost all other well-known sites, emphasis is given on photographic creativity. --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're right. I just wanted to anticipate criticism that was to be expected, keeping in mind the history of similar images' reviews here in FPC. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rila Monastery (Рилски манастир) - fresco 2.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2013 at 15:06:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Glorifies religion, which is responsible for most wars. 131.137.245.208 16:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a discussible, but existing opinion, no need to remain anonymous to express it...--Jebulon (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a very valid reason for not registering an account for this IP. Who I am shouldn't matter anyway and IP editing is still welcome on WM projects. 131.137.245.209 19:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No opinion about your choice. But remaining anonymous excludes your vote and allows only comments.--Jebulon (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 14:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 17:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:London Eye at Night (long exposure).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2013 at 19:17:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it purple Ca on the roof (see note)? -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure what it is (maybe some kind of reflection?), but I'm pretty sure it's not CA, as there would be more of it, I guess. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice view and a good idea to work with long exposure. But imho the composition is not fully convincing. The wheel cuts the building in the background of the London Eye. --Tuxyso (talk)
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice long exposure image --Dey.sandip (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 02:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blick auf Kettwig mit Uferpalais im Herbst 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2013 at 20:44:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View from the Ruhr Bridge ("Ruhrbrücke") on the historic center of Essen Kettwig with rebuilt waterside palace ("Uferpalais") photographed with an ND1024 filter
all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning! Yann (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support You used just the right shutter speed to capture the movement of the water. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann and King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and nice. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not my taste at all, sorry. I dislike the treatment of the water (the main subject ?) and I find the sharpness of buildings in backround not optimum.--Jebulon (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "treatment of the water"? What is wrong with it? I have not "treated" the water but just visualized the flow of the water. Info The flow speed of the water at this position is quite fast because under the bridge I am standing on there is a large weir system. The motive is the old town of Kettwig (nowadays a district of the city of Essen) which is directly located at the river Ruhr. If you look into the history there is a close relationship between Kettwig and its former textile industry and the river Ruhr. Thus this photo is imho a very good illustration of Kettwig. For me sharpness is OK (take a look on the resolution). I think not every photo must be 36 Mpx from D800 or a stitching. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Be sure I agree with your last sentence. I just dislike the way you "visualized" the flow of the water, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support イントレピッドサンダー (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the buildings and the water, but some of the trees are quite blurred due to wind (and long exposure) and this is not good IMO. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The blurred areas are quite small, only visible at the second or third glance - imho nearly inevitable with such long exposure shots. I was happy to got a moment of relative still air :) --Tuxyso (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @Norbert and others: I've tried to solve the blurr problems with the tree at the center of the image (took parts from a short exposure). Please take another look and tell if it is better now. Thanks. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Kikos (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give reason(s) for negative votes. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Bad lights, depressive coloring. I don't like this picture as "featured" on Commons. --Kikos (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. IMHO light is not that bad (I waited for a moment of slight sunlight on the buildings) and weather is very charateristic for autumn in Germany :) --Tuxyso (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the motion blur of the photo. That immediately catches the eye. But not a fan of how the trees are obscuring most details of the palace. That's not working. --Dey.sandip (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon --Vamps (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I cannot understand what's wrong with the water. I visualized the rapid flow of the water by using an ND filter - what else? I can also not see what's wrong with the sharpness. I've uploaded the photo in full resolution and think that sharpness is more than OK. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice city landscape (and different, thanks!) --Kadellar (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done.--.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Toronto - ON - Toronto Harbourfront7.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2013 at 21:48:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw. Picture is shown in far more than 100 articles in several wikipedias. Was already chosen as FP in de- and en-wikipedia. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support イントレピッドサンダー (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 15:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done.--.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sintra Portugal Palácio da Pena-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2013 at 21:52:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted ccw Poc o² 07:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a mess of a castle but how glorious at the same time. Tomer T finds the best stuff :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 02:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hommik laukaserval, Endla LK.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2013 at 22:30:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tauri Pärna - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I feel like i am actually there taking in the serene surrounds.Fotoriety (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition --The Photographer (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light + composition, beautiful motive, high quality. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 19:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The file is a beutiful — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 02:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The perfect visual accompaniment to the intro to Yes's "And You and I". Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 09:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Anonimski (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support only because of over-sharpening (visible at right).--ArildV (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reform clock movement.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2013 at 18:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Anonimski (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC) - uploaded by Anonimski (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC) - nominated by Anonimski (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC) -- Anonimski (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anonimski (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh shadows, plenty of noise/artifacts. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 10:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serruria furcellata (6).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2013 at 08:12:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andrew massyn (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC) - uploaded by Andrew massyn (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC) - nominated by Andrew massyn (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC) -- Andrew massyn (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrew massyn (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness is not sufficient for FP imo, and the background is very distracting. There are also some clipped whites on the subject. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image but per Julian -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above St1995 22:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Try COM:VI considering the importance of this picture. J Kadavoor J e e 08:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 10:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ancient Roman market place and Serapis temple panorama - Pozzuoli - Campania - Italy - July 11th 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2013 at 16:52:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Can you tell us how many pictures to make this one? Yann (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Five photos from left to right, the camera was mounted vertically on the tripod using an L shape bracket. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 09:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Joydeep _Talk 17:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
my Support too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support The detail quality is very good, motive is interesting. Also very good is the error-free stitchig which is remarkable with such a motive (at least of one does not own an L shape or an nodal point adapter). I am not 100% fine with the crop at the front. Is there a rationale why you cropped so tight (cropped fence)? --22:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxyso (talk • contribs)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 17:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamilton Mixtape (12 May 2009 live at the White House) Lin-Manuel Miranda.ogv[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2013 at 08:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Video - Rap song about Alexander Hamilton

Info created by Lin-Manuel Miranda - uploaded and nominated by -- Godot13 (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A novel way to present (and educate) on one of the founders of the United States - a rap song about Alexander Hamilton.
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not particularly impressed with the cinematography. The lighting is not the best, and I feel it is zoomed in a little too much at times. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. It's the content that I think should be featured (much more so than the cinematography) but since Featured Sounds is no longer an option this was the only shot...-Godot13 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The only "wow" is the audience - not sufficient for me. --P e z i (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination-Godot13 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puente Gobernador Nobre de Carvalho, Macao, 2013-08-08, DD 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2013 at 22:48:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Governador Nobre de Carvalho Bridge to the island of Taipa, Macau. All by me Poc o² 22:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP St1995 22:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 09:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Question Is the halo around lights in background normal, or is it a technical problem? — Draceane ^diskuse 09:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the street lamps in the island in the background? In that case I'd say that yes, that is normal. In some cases it can get ugly with a strong blooming, but I don't think it is the case here. Poc o² 16:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I mean the lamps. And I think that it's OK so. — Draceane ^diskuse 18:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Joydeep _Talk 17:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 18:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice--Godot13 (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 08:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Y mira esta técnica de andar por casa: (para la zona izquierda podría haber valido) --Kadellar (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks fo the hint Carlos! Quick and dirty translation: using a black card stock during a long exposure over the objective (moving it slightly to avoid an abrupt transition) to cover for some time the part of the picture with stronger lighting you can get a better balance lighting everywhere, Poc o² 14:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Israel-2013(2)-Tel Aviv-Hassan Bek Mosque 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2013 at 03:33:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Godot13 (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very lovely lighting and colors, but the composition gives me pause. The left and right crops are too tight IMO, and cut-off shadows are not ideal. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crops are tighter than I would like, but there is a piece of machinery on the left and a foot scooter on the right...-Godot13 (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Good composition, good sharpness. I think the crop isn't a problem.--XRay ^talk 08:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Please use Bot friendly templates (corrected). J Kadavoor J e e 17:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]
weak oppose The detail quality is very good, the colors are also good. Despite the high quality, the crop is imho too unfortunate: 1. the crop is too tight at the left and right. Most problematic at the seats around the fountain. 2. the crop in not symmetrical at the wall. On the right I had also cropped at the middle of the third window. But if I look in 100% view there seems to be something you cropped out there which results in such a tight crop. Positive: The relative position of entry and middle of the fountain is good. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Comment Added an ALT version (different image) with a margins on the sides, but a tighter top margin.--Godot13 (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, here the top of the gate is cut off. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The crop at the left and right is MUCH better - the scooter at the fence on the right is no problem for me. But why so tight at the top now? Are there any disturbing elements if you extend the crop at the top? The cutted door makes it imho somehow unbalanced now. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I don't have access to the original image raw file right now, I may renominate later if the crops can be improved.-Godot13 (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buddhist Stupa 3, Sanchi.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 15:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Dey.sandip (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know this place quite well. I think you could make a much better picture in terms of composition and lighting. The idea of the bench in the front is good, but the contrast between the shadow and the strong light in the back is not. The green wires on the left are hugly. The pipe in the right is also disturbing. Yann (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the effort taken to review the image. I'll wait for some more opinion and if others agree as well, will withdraw the nomination --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes; the shadow and the cropped object (stonework) on the right side are some issues. Top half is OK (except that crop). J Kadavoor J e e 06:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. The front shadow is disturbing and too much eye catching. The main object is too far from the viewer. The top half part should maybe need more contrast... But I would not qualify this photograph as a "snapshot" ! ( private joke)--Jebulon (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's okay even, if it looks like a snap-shot. Which just means not much "wow" to me. No issues with that. You are free to express your opinion, but I am not good with jokes. Sorry. --Dey.sandip (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see...--Jebulon (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Undoubtedly not a snap-shot but a real attempt of composition. IMO crop or centring too tight at right (the little Stupa on the right in background is cutted), maybe you would have of to move forward or to move back --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dey.sandip (talk • contribs) J Kadavoor J e e 09:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ixora flowers 4 edit.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2013 at 19:57:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, edited, uploaded and nominated by ArionEstar (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality is too low St1995 20:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Explain the reasons for it to be of low quality. ArionEstar (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of contrast, lack of details/excessive blur in a lot of parts because of uncontrolled use of surface blur (or equivalent), not enough control of the DoF which doesn't make the main flower “pop up” from the background, the whole picture is flat/washed out because the main flower is almost lit backwards while there's a partially bright background. Sting (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

ArionEstar (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2013 (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: nothing is sharp.

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.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vitra-Haus6.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2013 at 11:36:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Weil am Rhein: Vitra House, entrance area

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Color balance? Sting (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

color balance is given, the lamps are blasting yellowly --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Uninteresting composition. White-balance wrong (yes, the lamps are yellow, that's why we have controls to fix the white balance, just as our eyes do). The JPG is lacking colourspace -- whatever you are using to edit/save this JPG, it isn't up to standard and unsuitable for photographic work. A colourspace is an integral part of a JPG otherwise the image viewer has no means to determine what colour to use. -- Colin (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is nothing to fix. We are creating picture of EV and not art pictures. If the lamps are yellow we don't have to "correct" s.th., this is just the reality. Your pure assumption that here is a wrong colourspace is a very strange argumentation --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White-balance and JPG colourspace are separate issues. Your JPG has both faults. The correct white-balance for an image is a matter of judgement. I assume your picture is taken at night so there is no daylight in the scene. The eye would naturally adjust for yellow light and render the colours "correctly". Sometimes a picture benefits from retaining the tungsten yellow of lamps but imo this one does not and the wall and and white paintwork are rendered a sickly colour. As for your file lacking a defined colourspace, I suggest you read up more on this. What software are you using to save the file? -- Colin (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but my eye saw exactly this light impression we can see here in this canidate. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think the wet rectangle on the ground and the elements that are cut off on the right are a problem for the overall composition. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try a different crop. Easy way to change this if I find s.th. better. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Because "there's nothing to fix". Sting (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination some users don't seem base their decision because of the image --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schlosz-rauischholzhausen-N3S 4219-by-RalfR.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2013 at 22:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Ralf Roleček 22:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 22:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful colors and lighting, but quality at the edges (especially the left) is rather wanting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice light and compo, however it has some imo correctable issues: notable noise level on the sky, CA on both sides, image is rather soft and therefore sharpness should be increased (not on the sky), some perspective/tilt correction is needed. --Ivar (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I will not make massive changes. The photo is now distorted already totally in perspective, even more would be unnatural. I withdraw the nomination. --Ralf Roleček 10:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weintrauben, Wanfried, Hessen, Deutschland IMG 8279-8287 edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2013 at 16:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, edited, uploaded and nominated by Christoph Braun (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many aspects of this are very good, but the drops are overexposed and this has created some bad cyan-coloured artifacts. Is there a chance to correct this in RAW-editing? — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panorámica desde el cementerio Nº1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2013 at 15:47:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alexxxos - uploaded by Alexxxos - nominated by Alexxxos -- Alexxxos (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexxxos (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I recommend, that you first nominate your images for QI (Quality Image) and based on the feedback received there (and after potential image modifications/improvements) consider a nomination for FP? -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villeveyrac, Hérault 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2013 at 19:59:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 23:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No WOW :( Just a good landscape but nothing special for "featured". --Kikos (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kikos. -- -donald- (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kikos.--.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mono Lake South Tufa August 2013 010.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2013 at 18:40:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - edited by Tuxyso - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it St1995 19:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support To be honest: I am biased towards this photo. But I really like the diagonal composition and the colors. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice, but a photo with quite similar motif and almost identical file name was just recently nominated and featured (cf. below or: [1] ). I think, one featured image of this kind/motif is enough. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the photos are significantly different; this one is taken just as the sun is starting to rise, while the other one is taken right in the middle of the golden hour. And composition-wise, they are taken in different directions of different tufas and different mountains (in particular, this photo emphasizes the contrast between the tufa in the foreground and the illuminated mountains in the background, while in the other one the sole focus is the tufa and its reflection). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Unfortunately the fact the tufa isn't lightened by the sun leaves a generally dull image. Sting (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Actually, I like this one better. Yann (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The main subject is not well lit. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Kikos (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kikos: Could you please give reason(s) for your oppose. This massively helps the photographers and is imho a courtesy because the people here invest a lot of time to provide high quality photos. With en-3 it should not be a big deal for you. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too many pictures from one location and with generally identic motif. --Kikos (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Norbert. J Kadavoor J e e 15:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Norbert Nagel and Sting.--.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /St1995 20:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warsaw 07-13 img27 Visitation Order Church.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2013 at 10:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by A.Savin
Support --A.Savin 10:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad IMO --Christian Ferrer 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 17:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 16:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Münster, LVM, -Villa Kunterbunt- -- 2013 -- 1-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2013 at 16:41:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WB is somewhat blue IMO, otherwise very good. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly the top heavy perspective is not in accordance with the usual standards here. 131.137.245.207 17:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent example for the usage of HDRI technique - well done. @IP: If you are very close the a building it is normal that the close parts seem to be much larger than the farer parts - I cannot see why this is "not in accordance with the usual standards". I really like the level of detail in lights and shadows and the colorful lights. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support イントレピッドサンダー (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info --I understand it's the blue hour but here it was really too much, and over-saturated in that color. I uploaded a color balanced version, bringing back colors in the tainted windows and in the street. Sting (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better now, Support. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThanks for adjusting the colors. I'll adjust the colors at the origin too. So the adjustment take effect if a new version of the image will be uploaded - if neccessary.--XRay ^talk 17:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and color management. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a little CA on the top edge, but not enough to offset everything that makes this photo stand out as you're scrolling down the page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 09:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose simply too oversaturated for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose color management overprocessed --Vamps (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Natural History Museum HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2013 at 21:35:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Very nice, though the railings in the front are a bit distracting and there is a bit of unsharpness in some parts. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. --Ivar (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Yann (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, but the other one is better. Changed to neutral. Yann (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective correction.--Claus (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support imho ok --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 09:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose because of the railings (disturbing), and lack of sharpness.--Jebulon (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had to shoot with the camera placed on a photographic bean bag on the railings as the use of tripods is strictly forbidden in this place --Mdbeckwith
Request can you add please the infos about the exposure time(s) like here. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added extra information about exposure times and other camera details --Mdbeckwith
OK, thanks. I still prefer this image without the ghosts. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jägala juga talvel 2013.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2013 at 17:34:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aleksandr Abrosimov - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm doubtful about the copyright as I commented on your talk page. The problem I see is that a license is only valid if the copyright holder granted it. Anything else is very informal in my opinion. So please consult some expert opinion. J Kadavoor J e e 17:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strange processing. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 20:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --The source file is the Commons' cat where we find this picture? Wow! That's powerful. And the author isn't the uploader? Good point Jkadavoor: that's weird and has to be cleared out. Anyway, the image looks really really nice at small size but... at full size the uncontroled use of median filter (?) leads to weird shapes and very unnatural look. Sting (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madeira Airport Runway.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2013 at 18:48:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by  Richard  [®]  18:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Madeira Airport Runway Extension. Definitely a must see. The concrete pillars of the 2000 extension completed to extend the runway, winning the 2004 IABSE Outstanding Structure Award.
Support --  Richard  [®]  18:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing pic (dust spots should be removed - see notice) --P e z i (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice colors and clouds, but it doesn't show the runway very well (not a fan of how it appears curved). I feel the composition is unbalanced due to the empty sea in the lower right. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --If only because of the optical quality! We (very, very) seldom see here pictures taken with MF digital backs and no doubt: it's another world. Look at the details of the grass on the foreground or the waves! Wow! That's sharpness and detail – without need of over-sharpening post-process –. And an amazing construction: must be valuable spend a whole day over there. I agree for the dust spots. Sting (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination  Richard  [®]  23:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

??? Sting (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villeneuvette, Hérault 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2013 at 20:47:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2013
Oppose sorry, but the right shadowed part isn't featured for me. It is disturbing. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing impressive or "wow", disturbing shadows --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2013

File:Vintgar Slovenia.webm, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2013 at 13:37:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by https://www.youtube.com/user/5982312 - uploaded by Sporti - nominated by Slick -
Question I am not sure where to vote videos. Is this the right place? I just try it. - Slick (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slick (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing against videos per se, but the quality of this one is not good enough for FP, it seems to be cut in the middle, and the sound is bad. Yann (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 17:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Das Motorrad mit den Skiern von der Seite - CH-BAR - 3241064.tif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2013 at 12:01:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Swiss WW1 soldier biker on a motorcycle/snowmobile crossover. Created by an unknown photographer - uploaded by Swiss Federal Archives - nominated by Kelson -- Kelson (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kelson (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 05:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Old time-stamp; create a fresh nomination page and retry. J Kadavoor J e e 05:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bay Psalm Book.djvu, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2013 at 20:47:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Richard Mather, John Elliot and others, scanned by the US Library of Congress, DJVU file created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Bay Psalm Book is the first book printed in the USA, and the most expensive book sold at an auction for 14,2 million US$. High resolution of the complete book (264 pages), now available for free. ;o) Yann (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info This should be considered like a set, and judge on the merit of the whole document, not only of the tumbnail.
Support -- Yann (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blessed be the Lord ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we should clarify the case of nominations of .djvu files. What should we assess ? This PICTURE ? This is ok. ALL the book as presented in the file page ? This is not ok. As for an image, this one is not technically remarkable, but has very high values, and even unique. There is something ambiguous, but remember: here is the Featured "Pictures" candidates page... --Jebulon (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not only pictures, there have been quite a number of drawings too. Yann (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe be should consider establishing a new category for remarkable historical documents, be they maps, drawings, or whole books. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maps, drawings, isolated pages or isolated documents are PICTURES. Sets of images too. This is not. --Jebulon (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support imho ok--Steinsplitter (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 15:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do think this is valuable, but I don't see the visual quality of this. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will have to think about this again. I'm not sure if rarity and age alone give this high historic merit. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do think this is valuable, but: a bad scanned book. I don't see any featured images here. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very rare book (only 11 copies still known), which is one of the criteria for a FP, and a high resolution scan. So I don't understand your critic. Yann (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry but, the name of this side is: "Featured picture candidates" and not "Featured candidates of scanned books". Please create this new side and I give my outstanding support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, this file is constituted of pictures. We allow animated GIFs, and drawings, so I don't think this is a valid argument. Yann (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~OK, you are right. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)~~ --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of above (not convinced by all Yann's arguments), because I don't know what I should support (this page, the book ?), because it is here featured "PICTURES" candidates pages (.gif, and drawings or designs are pictures too, this is not), because this page (sorry, I can judge only this one), has a very bad quality. Please nominate this as a set of pages. I think that Alchemist's first thought was good.--Jebulon (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument seems also weird to me. You are not supposed to judge a FPC only on the thumbnail, and you can access the whole document here: File:Bay Psalm Book.djvu. Yann (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, Jebulon convinced me. My first thought: I don't see any featured here too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This could also be considered a set of pictures, which is accepted. But it obviously won't be practical to display the whole set at once. Yann (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do we like to nominate and vote here for all old and scanned books? This can't be the main on this side!?! I'm missing any featured. This can be and is perhaps very valued, but featured? Try to nominate it as a VI. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It may probably be VI, but I think it is also FP, because of 1. it is a very rare and famous book, 2. it is of high quality. These 2 requirements are not necessary for VI, but they are for FP. Yann (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /St1995 22:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vitra Design Museum nachts1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2013 at 06:58:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the remarkable scaffolding a regular part of the building or is it there due to "real" construction work? The latter case would be unfortunate for the FP quality of an architecture shot despites the aim is a documentation of the construction process of the building as it is the case on this FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is due to construction work, but (1) this has like you already mentioned a worth of documentation (2) this is not really disturbing IMO. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 20:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question is it a copyright violation? I mean the photo of "Louis Kahn". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm afraid I must second Alchemist-hp: temporarily shown, too big for DM. It's posible to blur out the photo (instead of deleting the whole file), but this would ruin the composition far below FP requirements. --A.Savin 22:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was sure this is to handle just as an accessory part. But I'll resolve it by discussing this issue with my advocate. I'll reply contemporary. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't want to spoil this nomination for the DR. Will be deleted if the rational is accepted. J Kadavoor J e e 15:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until question about copyvio is resolved --Vamps (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image is no copyvio. The photpography of Kahn just about 10 % of the image size so it is covered by the German law § 57 UrhG (copyright law) as so called "Beiwerk". It is obvious that the main subject shown in this image is the building and not the photography. All buildings in Germany can be photographed from public space, even art work. So we have definitly no copyvio here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've answered on the DR page. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The poster in the foreground, adds to be overall appeal of the image --115.114.191.92 07:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC) invalid voting. Please login first. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ ~~From my current research we have a serious copyvio problem here. I asked the German copyvio experts for further help. I will change to neutral or weak oppose if everything is fine with the image.~~ To the image: Not a brilliant one: As already mentioned the scaffolding is disturbing and the large photography in front of the building distracts from the architecture of the building. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "reserch" is based on a non juristic book with a disputable conclusion made by yourself. I guess an advocate which is involved day to day with this questions is more authentic than any self-appointed "copyvio expert". In fact this smells very strong to be a revenge-contra for this. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No personal accusation please - probably I should ask some admins for help. I am free in my opinion and on the time I express it. During my research on the copyvio I looked serveral times on your photo and saw new aspectcs I did not really like on your photo - e.g. the distraction of symmetry by the large photo in front - what's the problem with that? Please respect my opinion. One aspect of my oppose was already mentioned five days before - so keep calm. IMHO the copyvio problem should be resolved in consensus with the community. I guess your lawyer decided rather technically than considering your motive. This is not only a judicial problem but a photographic question. The photograph in front of the building surely belongs to the motive. But please let's discuss it on the appropriate place. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - please do not discuss on two pages for the same stuff, I didn't accuse anybody here, so stay calm and do not assume my advocate wouldn't know the arguable image. I asked intrinsic for this image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry, forgot to login earlier --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, A.Savin and Jkadavoor for their useful hints. I've striked every copyvio statement, because here is the wrong place to discuss it. I also dismissed my opposing vote and decided for the future to ignore that user. Nonetheless the kind how Taxiarchos228 verbally tackled me here and on different discussion pages was far from being OK and I will not forget it easily. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: x support, x oppose, x neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 05:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iifar, that is a conditional oppose; so no need to count if the file will be kept. And if deleted, no need to count any. :) J Kadavoor J e e 16:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. J Kadavoor J e e 05:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burrow Mump is just a hump.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2013 at 23:36:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit oversaturated and oversharpened IMO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oversharpened --Ivar (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! --XRay ^talk 08:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oversaturated But not by much. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please use only the standard support, oppose, and neutral templates as the bot is only able to correctly count votes when those templates are used. I have fixed your vote. Thanks! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Actually a nice composition, however the colors do look over-saturated. A more neutral coloring would be preferred --Dey.sandip (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversaturated. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts.--.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too oversaturated St1995 20:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iron powder.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2013 at 22:06:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Anonimski (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC) - uploaded by Anonimski (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC) - nominated by Anonimski (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC) -- Anonimski (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anonimski (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 22:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find the crop at the bottom or top to be very appealing, unfortunately. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp, noisy, bad crop. Perhaps an image without the jar. The description can be also better: what is it for an iron? Steel, pure, ??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but no wow.--.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hommik Viru rabas.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 09:30:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Abrget47j - uploaded by Abrget47j - nominated by Abrget47j -- Abrget47j (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Abrget47j (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely lighting. Not the sharpest but I think it's OK given the 36 MP resolution. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice but is it possible to have coordonates?-- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice mood. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 18:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 18:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! Halavar (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 16:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pirin - hiking trail from Vihren.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2013 at 13:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors and lighting aren't very interesting to me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- On full screen this is a wonderful shot. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely detail and great perspective with hiker in front. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 10:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Joydeep _Talk 17:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Bland image, contrast lacking --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. Halavar (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /St1995 15:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Squirrel posing.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 06:30:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Peter Trimming - uploaded & nominated by Aleksa Lukic Alex‘s SeeSide 06:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alex‘s SeeSide 06:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question A little bit dark. Can you lighten up the dark areas? Is there a higher resolution available? Otherwise nice. -- -donald- (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry that's the highest resolution available. Also, I don't have appropriate image editing software installed, but I would be thankful if you or someone else could adjust the brightness and reupload the picture. --Alex‘s SeeSide 12:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Lovely, but species is needed for FP. Could you add that please? Yann (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support OK now. French description added. Yann (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done The species is called Sciurus vulgaris (an ordinary squirrel ) or Red squirrel. --Alex‘s SeeSide 05:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --XRay ^talk 08:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 18:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 18:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good shot of this beautiful animal. Halavar (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 16:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Day the Earth Smiled - PIA17172.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 11:54:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Stas1995 - nominated by Nikhil -- Nikhil (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed a very stunning picture of the planet and its rings! In addition I find the shadow tails of the moons around it quite interesting. --Ximonic (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Oh yes! Like in the other FPC bellow Saturn's dark side is posterized and there're pretty visible banding in the outer rings but the PoV of this picture and the incredible richness of the visible objects mitigates this. But I don't like the choice of the filename. Sting (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 16:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but also dislike the file name. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 20:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow — Draceane ^diskuse 18:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment IMO the comment in the file page is too long, and too encyclopedical for "Commons". An article in WP should be better, also a shorter description in the file page here.--Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment astonishing!
Support --Kadellar (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a hard time believing the cetral disk is actually the planet. 131.137.245.208 18:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! Halavar (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /St1995 14:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Ärina tuuleveski.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 08:43:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Ärina windmill ruins, all by Ivar (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice spring images. Can you do something about the noise (from sharpening) in the sky?--ArildV (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done yes, that's flowering Acer platanoides on the background. --Ivar (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support --ArildV (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 18:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light, colours and composition. --Kadellar (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and colors. Halavar (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 16:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mikhail Tal 1982.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2013 at 19:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rob C. Croes - uploaded by Materialscientist - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent mood. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Yes, good expression, but heavy noise for FP. Yann (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Indeed, love the photo, but the quality is just not there. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very bad noise. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above St1995 23:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1982 and Noise? ;) --Ralf Roleček 08:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the mood, but the quality is too low --Vamps (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support great shot! And dealing with B&W film, grain is not a bug but a feature (sic!) --P e z i (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support As above. Agree with that statement. Halavar (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV and very good photo. Some grain yes, but not to bad imo for a indoor shot (probably with a high ASA value).--ArildV (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loxodonta africana - Oasis Park - Fuerteventura.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2013 at 13:57:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
temporary Oppose can you eliminate the strong CA please. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose deleted. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the hint. CA and colour correction done --Llez (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 17:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /St1995 15:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hong Kong Victoria Harbour 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2013 at 13:19:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- The Photographer (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp at all, partially hazy or bloom, IMO not extraordinary --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite nice cloudscape framing and overall lighting, but Wladyslaw does highlight some real issues with quality. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wladyslaw. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 23:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /St1995 22:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lever tumbler lock animation.gif[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2013 at 10:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Joram van Hartingsveldt - uploaded by Joram van Hartingsveldt - nominated by Slick| -- Slick (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slick (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice! Nikhil (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heavy posterization. Since a GIF only allows 256 colors, I would have just preferred solid colors for everything and avoided the shading effects. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure I would call it posterization, rather an odd moiré effect, but it is distracting nonetheless. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As mentioned before me, it would have been better to have less colors. A smoother movement could be rendered without using too much memory, in that case. Anonimski (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King --Vamps (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /St1995 11:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bandarban Tribal kid Sisterhood.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2013 at 06:36:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mohammad Rakibul Hasan - uploaded by Rahat - nominated by Rahat -- Rahat (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ctg4Rahat (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice, but the quality... --Claus (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... unless consent can be established. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An excellent photo ruined by compression. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Claus --Vamps (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Claus and Julian H.--.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like this theme St1995 20:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /St1995 11:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Natural History Museum Main Hall, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 21:44:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe it compares favourably to the previous nomination below in terms of resolution, detail and photorealism. This image IMO is a more respectful reproduction of the lighting inside the Natural History Museum. Diliff (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about the ghosts ... ??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice image and apt lighting. Presence of ghosting is very minor and is not disturbing. --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... but to eliminate the ghosts is a small work for a good software, for example: like Photomatix 4.x.
It's not possible to eliminate the ghosting. Photomatix only removes the ghosts that are caused by duplication between the different exposures of the same frame. However, the ghosts in this image are caused by long exposure and cannot easily be removed. Diliff (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, it is also simple to eliminate the ghosts: take 2-3 shots and mask the peaple out. I think you know it too ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do... But this photo was already 24 separate exposures and it was extremely difficult to find any time at all when people weren't coming up or down the stairs. I was also standing in the same position that many other photographers wanted to stand to take their photos so I was under pressure to give them 'their turn'. ;-) I didn't think it was necessary to remove all the ghosts. Diliff (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm missing also the info: how it is made: I think it is also an HDR image. Please add the infos: exposure time(s), like here. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's necessary to explain how I made the image for it to be considered featureable, but I've added the info as you requested. Diliff (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it is always important for a lot of other photographers and it is simply educational. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO not both photos can become featured because the motives are too similiar. What do the others think about that? --Tuxyso (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why not? There are many precedents, e.g. this one --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think they are so similar. The angle of view is different (mine is considerably wider), as is the lighting/HDR processing. Each show the same subject but quite differently. Diliff (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Falbisoner: That is a very rare case. But, here I agree with Diliff; the lighting make them very different. J Kadavoor J e e 15:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically it is considerably better than the other nomination/FP: the lighting is handled better, the image is sharper while slightly higher resolution, and the verticals are straight. I also prefer the composition here (in the other, the hand rail dominated) and the extra width brings in another section of ceiling and two side galleries. It is a shame about the ghosts. -- Colin (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly the same as Colin.--Jebulon (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 19:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Godot13 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot Halavar (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nieszawa muzeum Noakowskiego.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 16:27:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andrzej O - uploaded by Andrzej O - nominated by Andrzej O -- Andrzej Otrębski (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrzej Otrębski (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:2013.08.04.-04-Ladenburg-Hauhechel-Blaeuling-Maennchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 09:07:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if File:2013.08.04.-05-Ladenburg-Hauhechel-Blaeuling-Maennchen.jpg won't pass. But don't want both to be featured. Prefer this. J Kadavoor J e e 03:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 18:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 18:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! Halavar (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  23:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bufo marinus in Venezuela.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 18:03:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by --The Photographer (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Master of Disguise, well done. --Ivar (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 18:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Slick (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard [®] 23:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lincoln Cathedral (7435757570).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 23:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose -- A little bit blurry.--XRay ^talk 08:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with XRay, nothing is really in focus. It is also "almost" symmetric, and that's a bit disturbing in this kind of shots imo. --Kadellar (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not vertical, not symmetric, a perspective correction would help. Not really sharp.--Jebulon (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minang snacks.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2013 at 04:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by myself -- SpartacksCompatriot (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SpartacksCompatriot (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but the background is a no go for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2013 (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 isn't OK, because blurred. - Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2013 (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:Glacier Point at Sunset, Yosemite NP, CA, US - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2013 at 08:20:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A view from Glacier Point, created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Ivar (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! I like it.--XRay ^talk 08:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is nice lighting. But per Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panoramic Overview from Glacier Point over Yosemite Valley 2013.jpg I'm concerned there is an anti-clockwise tilt to this image. There doesn't need to be much tilt for a wide pano like this to be affected -- individual frames can be ok but when stitched together the mistakes add up. Colin (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't be sure about tilt. So support otherwise. -- Colin (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 18:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 00:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The centered position of the Half Dome is in the case here very good. Nice light. I had not been there as early as you :) But I am with Colin: If you take a look on the horizon line, the tree at the right and on the Half Dome I also get the impression of a slight CCW tilt. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it was a sunset so you just had to wait a few hours more. ;-) As for the perceived tilt, I'm not 100% sure but I don't believe the image is tilted. You can't judge the tilt from the horizon line, because there simply isn't one - you are surrounded by mountains taller than Glacier Point, so any sense of intuition about the horizon is probably going to be wrong. For what it's worth, the mountains on the far right side of the image are some of the tallest in Yosemite NP so it's not inconceivable that they would be rising much higher than the mountains on the left which are not so prominent. I put together a simple Google map overlay of the viewpoint and the lines to the prominent peaks in the image. The mountain on the right, Mount Clark is at least 1000 feet taller than the mountain on the left, and slightly closer too which would make it appear taller. The tree leaning inwards is not IMO a sign that the image is tilted, because the tree is growing out of the side of the cliff and you wouldn't expect it to be growing completely straight. All the trees in the background look pretty much straight to me, but admittedly they are very distant and it is hard to gauge the tilt accurately from them. Diliff (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice--Godot13 (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 18:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic view! Halavar (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 18:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Support  Richard  [®]  23:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 16:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Münster, WestLotto -- 2013 -- 1-3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2013 at 08:26:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technical okay, but too dark over all and too few of the building itself --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as per Wladyslaw. Yann (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Better now, so I change to Neutral. Yann (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Excellent nightscape. The pitch-black areas aren't too distracting IMO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 17:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wladyslaw --Vamps (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too large dark areas. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New image uploaded. It's a little bit brighter now.--XRay ^talk 14:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not too dark for me. Great light in this image. Halavar (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 16:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Dresden Skyline + Nette Nachbarn 20090727 cropped.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2013 at 13:33:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Dresden - flowered skyline created, uploaded & nominated by Frze ^{> talk} 13:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frze ^{> talk} 13:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice snap shot --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not a reason for opposing. --G Furtado (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it is. A snap shot is not an outstanding picture. Only an outstanding picture could get a FP. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice snap shot, but ordinary composition and sharpnees issues --A.Savin 19:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 16:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:British Museum Great Court, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2013 at 21:57:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Diliff - uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by User:Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a new Diliff :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There was an old Diliff? :-) I never disappeared, I just wasn't very active on Commons FPC for a while... Diliff (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - this I recognized, welcome back :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a new Diliff :-) --Ralf Roleček 22:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC) please a workshop for us in London 2014[reply]
Support However, I'm a bit puzzled by the colour of the roof. Is this a "blue hour" effect? -- Colin (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed the blue hour effect, and it the time was chosen specifically for the juxtaposition of the warm interior and the cool exterior through the ceiling glass (somewhat of an ongoing theme of mine recently, with the short daylight hours of winter). Diliff (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ralf. David, your active presence here is really a motivation to all. J Kadavoor J e e 03:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 18:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 18:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Caesio teres in Fiji by Nick Hobgood.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2013 at 18:17:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Caesio teres in Fiji. Created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you sure of the species? This question because of that and Google images. --Myrabella (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 23:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 17:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info WikiProject Fishes suggested that this is Caesio teres. J Kadavoor J e e 16:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Oppose~~ Until the ID is confirmed. --Myrabella (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and new category acknowledged, thanks. --Myrabella (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Myrabella --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now renamed, I take back my opposition. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support renamed. J Kadavoor J e e 17:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  23:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Costa de Playa Girón.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2013 at 21:57:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by USERNAME -- Ivan2010 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivan2010 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 22:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excessive curvature of the horizon. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kinda on the smaller side, plus seriously blown foam on the right. Good eye, though. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 05:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Horizon is a no-go for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King --Vamps (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dresden Skyline + Nette Nachbarn 20090727 cropped.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2013 at 13:33:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Dresden - flowered skyline created, uploaded & nominated by Frze ^{> talk} 13:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frze ^{> talk} 13:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice snap shot --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not a reason for opposing. --G Furtado (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it is. A snap shot is not an outstanding picture. Only an outstanding picture could get a FP. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice snap shot, but ordinary composition and sharpnees issues --A.Savin 19:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 16:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Huelga educativa 24-O - 11.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2013 at 23:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A student shouts at a demonstration in Madrid against cuts in education and education law reform. Taken in pretty difficult conditions. Shutter speed wasn't quicker because I had to show also some of the background, lit only by streetlights. A black background would be useless, out of context. Since I found this a difficult shot, please try to write useful reviews if you choose to oppose, thanks (and I'll keep them in mind in the future). Created, uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Composition is nice but motion blur and heavy high-ISO noise; this last can be corrected without much difficulty. Sting (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sting.--.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 06:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jewel of the Solar System.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2013 at 16:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/SSI/Cornell St1995 16:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 16:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is in natural color, as human eyes would have seen it. St1995 16:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I uploaded a slightly less underexposed version, also correcting some hotpixels. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good view of both the rings and the hexagonal storm. -- Anonimski (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- ~~per others and +1 for the natural colour~~ Found another stitching error. The other stuff I could forgive. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vamps (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- For now. Sure it's an exceptional image from an uncommon view of Saturn, but the post-processing made here (on Commons) shows marks on the lower right corner left by the brush tool used. Also, but that's already present in the tif file, there are several posterization, the most important being in in the planet's part in the shadow, and a stitching problem in the rings (upper-right). Sting (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I fixed the problems in the lower right corner. The other problems seem to be difficult to fix. I'd personally prefer to keep them as they are simply a result of what it means to take a panorama from a spacecraft in orbit (and therefore moving quickly). If someone can fix the problems well, that would be great of course. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 20:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It took me a long time to even find the problems Sting was talking about, so IMO they are not too major. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /St1995 17:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

Illustrations about the crystallisation in Naica for wikijunior, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2013 at 10:14:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Main page, the girl seeing giant crystals
Location of naica Mine in the World
Location and difference between crystal caves in Naica
Crystals in "espadas" cave
Crystals in "cristales" cave
Size differences between caves
All things are made by atoms and molecules
Molecular difference between crystals and glass
How are crystals formed
Calcium sulphate and water form gypsum crystals
The molecules are stacked
Speed of crystallization in "espadas" result in smaller crystals
Slowly crystallization in "cristales" cave result in giant crystals
Temperature differences determine the density and velocity
This is why the size of crystal is different between the caves

Info created by CarolGC - uploaded by CarolGC - nominated by Dvdgmz -- Dvdgmz (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good didactic images for Children, consistency amongst the set, technical and artistic quality, useful contribution for wikibooks (in Catalan, in Spanish) --Dvdgmz (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a useful contribution for teaching. Gaianauta (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't stuff like this be vectorized? There's also quite a lot of inconcistency in edge sharpness... Anonimski (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment May or may not be vectors:) Some of the atmosphere effects are based on bitmap techniques. But the value of these images are that they form a collection that transmit a scientific subject in an effective and attractive way to children. --Dvdgmz (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support High educational value, good quality. Yann (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, and most or all images are definitely good didactic images for children. Maybe you should nominate this as valuable image set rather than as FP set. Furthermore, I would remove the text from image 1 (to allow international use), add the units in image 3 (m), and state more precisely the units in image 14 (°C). Also an image with the girl together with the giant crystals in correct scale would be good (as on this photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cristales_cueva_de_Naica.JPG). The last image of this set seems to understate the size of the giant crystals. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for comment. I did a request for that to the author. The last image is an "abstract" comparison of the crystals size in two caves. --Dvdgmz (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Dvdgmz. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 00:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Awww!! 😍. Would prefer it in png instead of jpg tho—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent drawings. Though I think JPG is fine given that the number of colors used makes it practically a photo. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Point Mugu September 2013 013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2013 at 07:11:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perspective issues : the fence at top left is leaning out --Christian Ferrer 13:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ok --Christian Ferrer 06:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 18:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 17:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 18:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Support I like the colors  Richard  [®]  23:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pava (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:San Francisco Panorama from Twin Peaks 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2013 at 21:49:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view. There aren't enough morning pictures of this place. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Compare also File:San Francisco with approaching fog.jpg (FP) and File:San Francisco Downtown, and Golden Gate Bridge early morning panorama.jpg (failed FPC). I think the latter failed because of problems with vertical alignment that were fixed a bit late, but it is lovely. This one is less attractive but very valuable as a detailed illustration of the areas. -- Colin (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 17:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 18:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amada44 ^{talk to me} 19:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  23:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not a friend of "tube-picture". But here it works and the misty weather is atmospheric and was shot by good quality. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santuario Nacional de Aparecida.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2013 at 00:43:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by RStaparo - uploaded by RStaparo - nominated by ArionEstar (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ArionEstar (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steve Jobs Headshot 2010-CROP.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 18:23:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Matthew Yohe - uploaded by Fetchcomms - nominated by ArionEstar (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ArionEstar (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2013 (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.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riccio Melone a Capo Caccia adventurediving.it.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 17:53:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Marco Busdraghi - uploaded by Marco Busdraghi - nominated by ArionEstar (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ArionEstar (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is small in size and the centered composition don't work that well with this image. It is interesting, but there is no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Niterói bay and contemporary musem.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 14:37:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Phx de - uploaded by Phx de - nominated by ArionEstar (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ArionEstar (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Marville, Urinoir en ardoise à 3 stalles, Chaussée du Maine, ca. 1865.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2013 at 02:15:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Charles Marville - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --High historical value and optimal quality. Nice general restoration but I'm not convinced by the crop resulting from the tilt as it cuts the bottom-right circle. In definitive it's a historical photograph and we can – should? – accept the technical flaws. I would have preferred keep the complete rotated picture in a thin white frame. Sting (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info A new version was uploaded. Thank Sting!--Paris 16 (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merci ! ... and with improved levels! 150 years! Amazing quality. Sting (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good quality, considering the age. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 20:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JLPC (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 17:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Chelmno kamienica Cywinskich 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2013 at 11:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Andrzej O -- Andrzej Otrębski (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Andrzej Otrębski (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --This dark subject needs a lateral backup lightning to reveal its volumes. Quality not on top due to camera limitation. Some CAs on the left. Sting (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sting. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Playa Maya, Ko Phi Phi, Tailandia, 2013-08-19, DD 13.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2013 at 10:04:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Long-tail boats in Maya Beach (famous thank to the film "The Beach"), Ko Phi Phi, Thailand. All by me, Poc o² 10:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 10:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --I think it's a pity that the boats hide almost totally the colorful water. It's disappointing because we see the boats but almost nothing from the bay except the high mountains. Sting (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you if in that bay were not about 1000 people and 60-70 boats, it was as crowded as in the opening hour of the consumer electronics malls on Black Friday :) Poc o² 12:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sensible point of view in all the senses of the word. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't get your comment Christian Poc o² 14:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my laborious english language and for one of my (maybe useless) features of the spirit, it's a good point of view in all the sens because :

It is the right way to think that this image is a good compromise to represent this idyllic and very busy place (point of view of the spirit).

It is the good place from which to take a good photo and a good composition with a wide angle (point of view from which you took the photo).

It's a very beautiful image --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I understand the difficulties you may had for this shot but that's the work of the photographer, isn't it? Not all places (even if beautiful) or moments are suited for a great picture. The impression I have looking at this photograph is you were teared between taking a nice picture with a good pov of these traditional boats, regardless of the place, and picturing the bay with these same boats. Btw, the optical quality of you lens is dropping in the corners: isn't Lightroom able to correct this? And when picturing people the lateral deformations are pretty visible. In that case a correction of the cylindrical deformation should solve both problems. Sting (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with you that mostly things are not in a way that allow you to take a great picture easily. I just wanted to point out that the picture you have in mind -maybe a picture from a higher POV showing more of the bay was hardly possible due to the amount of people. To be honest, the main subject of this picture are the boats in their habitat, and in this case with turquise water and steep hills surrounding it. Poc o² 14:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is Lightroom unable to correct this, it's mathematically impossible. Objects in the corners can either become wider or bent - until we have round screens, there is no alternative. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should try DxO Optics Pro ;) Sting (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Striking composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 18:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition, colors and technical quality. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! Halavar (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice scene, overall --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View to Geiranger from Flydalsjuvet, 2013 June.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2013 at 13:00:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The brightness gradient in the top area is quite strong and there is some clipping in the clouds. Is reducing the contrast an option, instead of the gradient? — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Kikos (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question could we have geocoding, please? --P e z i (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic view! Halavar (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 18:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Support very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  10:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for nomination! Picture geocoded - GeoLocator didn't work some time ago. --Ximonic (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pirin - Vihren peak.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2013 at 21:35:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a problem in the sky just left of the flags -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is strange, but I corrected photo --Pudelek (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now. Nice composition. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 18:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image. Halavar (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  23:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support good--Pava (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleclown (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plona ob Lienz CH.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2013 at 21:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Plona ob Lienz CH c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice mood, very good technical accomplishment like nearly all pictures of Böhringer. But the cut off road and the strong fisheye look is not harmonic for me. A single shot would be probably much better here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There are some good things to like about this image, but the fish-eye view with heavy distortion is kind of disturbing for a landscape shot --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thanks for this very nice and high quality image but too much deformed IMO --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but I do not like deformed images, sorry St1995 17:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Pava (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)}} subject deforming, cut no good for me--Pava (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Böhringer (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS Mason (DDG 87) VBSS team greet the crew of a Yemeni fishing dhow.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2013 at 01:56:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info - created by Navy photographer - uploaded by Ramaksoud2000 - nominated by Ramaksoud2000 -- Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong chromatic aberation. — Draceane ^diskuse 15:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Quality (CA, sharpness) is not OK. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Celebrity Summit-DSC 0134w.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 00:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by P e z i - uploaded by P e z i - nominated by P e z i -- P e z i (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P e z i (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the composition (especially the position of the small boat in front of the large cruise liner) to be rather jarring, unfortunately. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ah, but the composition is the best part of this photo! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition! :-) --XRay ^talk 08:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts--.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It would be hard for the little boat to pull the big one if it wasn't in front. 75.41.109.190 00:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 09:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral Agree with KoH, but still the main problem I see is the lighting, it is not favourable and, in order to have the big shipp properly exposed, the background got overexposed. It may be fixable. Poc o² 10:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)^[reply]

To both of you: You are right; the big ship is not only jarring, it's scaring IMO. That's was the idea behind the picture - and that's the problem that Venice is confronted with.

@Poco_a_Poco: what is overexposed in your opinion? The basilica? --P e z i (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I have reconsidered my vote and will go for neutral. I think that it isn't so bad after I looked at it again, Poc o² 15:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good image. Halavar (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one I like it a lot. I liked doing it. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really good composition imo, quite dimmed. — Draceane ^diskuse 18:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Support  Richard  [®]  23:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Venice is fantastic, really sublime.. but in this picture the composition is no good for me, and there are problems of light--Pava (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all I respect your opinion. Just want to explain: The intention is not to show the chocolate side of this marvellous lagoon. It is more focused on the bad feeling about problems Venice is facing caused by the numerous visits of huge cruise ships. --P e z i (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Canton Tower 2013.12.02 18-16-47.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 06:03:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Canton Tower, all by myself -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the image and the object - especially the TV Tower :-) - but unfortunately the picture has strong technical issues (lacking sharpness, artefacts, etc.) -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 17:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eesti põhjarannik.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 09:41:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Urmas83 - uploaded by Urmas83 - nominated by Urmas83 -- Urmas83 (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urmas83 (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful golden hour lighting. Cropping a bit of sky at the top might improve composition a little. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but notable stitching errors (notes added). --Ivar (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to that, it would be nice to get the horizon to be slightly more horizontal. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 20:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
Neutral The image quality is very good, the light is interesting, but only tiny parts are lightened. The composition is good but not outstanding, imho the centered rocks in the background could be better placed. My main problem is that I can neither gather from the image description (no English) nor from the photo itself what your main motive is. The category Coast of Estonia is very unspecific in that manner. The devision of space - stones, sea and sky is good.
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose A very nice image, but it's bent (deeper into the middle than at the edge). Please have a look to the horizon.--XRay ^talk 08:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Done~~[reply]
- Support It's good now. :-) Please add an english description. --XRay ^talk 06:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 18:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support Per XRay, would support if this problem is fixed Poc o² 10:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
Good work, changed to support! Poc o² 10:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Very nice colors and composition. Halavar (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per XRay Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
Comment Urmas83, you corrected it but there is always a stitching error (see note), behind the rock the sea is at a higher level on the right --Christian Ferrer 12:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually there is one more you didn't notice. I'm not a Photoshop expert so i give up. It is good enough for me and and I won't edit it any more. You must have used a ruler to see it is not perfect.Urmas83
Support I think now the picture is OK. — Draceane ^diskuse 14:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Support geocoding and description in English would be nice --P e z i (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Münster, DRK, Zentrum für Transfusionsmedizin -- 2013 -- 1-4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2013 at 11:21:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 11:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 11:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The leaves of the trees are blurred. The building is distorted. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed CAs on the left (leaves of the tree). (BTW: It is an HDR image taken at the blue hour. So the exposure time was longer.)--XRay ^talk 15:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated, the car trail on the left has grey areas, the sky looks fake (shouldn't be darkened). — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 20:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for information: The isn't darkened, it's natural due to the blue hour. And I can't find distorted parts of the building.--XRay ^talk 05:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It just looks darkened because it's a lot brighter between the leaves. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was no additional saturation, but you're right. I reduced saturation and I think it's better now.--XRay ^talk 05:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Thanks for your advice. Very small distortion on the left removed. Lights (grey) improved.--XRay ^talk 13:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dust spots (see notes) --Christian Ferrer ^talk 14:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Thanks. It must be perfect now. ;-) Dust spots removed.--XRay ^talk 14:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but the car lights on the left spoil everything IMO --Christian Ferrer ^talk 09:49, 11December 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basílica Nuestra Señora del Rosario de Chiquinquirá (Exterior 1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2013 at 17:44:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Béria Lima -- Béria Lima ^msg 17:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Béria Lima ^msg 17:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info Image was rather soft and therefore I added some sharpness. Please revert, if it's not better. --Ivar (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support while edits approved by author. --Ivar (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 13:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image. Halavar (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  23:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great compo (the building at the right is annoying, but not critical) --A.Savin 12:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again, I love the paleness. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 14:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I suggest Beria to correct the metadata for the FPs, at least. Our FPs will be heavily used, and a contradicting metadata (especially the license) is not so good. J e e 02:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it Jkadavor, but turns out that efixtool is still above my powers of understading, as soon as I figure out how that magic happens I will change in all images who are FP or QI. Béria Lima ^msg 11:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. J e e 13:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Eberswalde, An der Friedensbrücke 23-23a.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 20:48:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sinuhe20 - uploaded by Sinuhe20 - nominated by Sinuhe20 -- Sinuhe20 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Perspective corrected.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Sinuhe20 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perspective distortion--XRay ^talk 08:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 18:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The corner of the building in the right is really disturbing. — Draceane ^diskuse 19:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose too bad cut --Pava (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tradescantia tolmukakarvad ja õietolm.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2013 at 15:43:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Heiti Paves - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 20:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info I made an attempt to reduce some of the noise. Please revert, if it's not better. --Ivar (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and useful image. Halavar (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bravo! Royalbroil 19:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great (and high educational value) SEM image! Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 22:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  23:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Plenty colorful --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~! ArionEstar (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. J Kadavoor J e e 16:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleclown (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Calotes mystaceus manipur.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2013 at 10:14:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A Blue-crested lizard in Manipur, India. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ianaré (talk)
Support -- ianaré (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 01:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RhB Ge 4-4 II Wiesener Viadukt.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 23:38:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A RhB Ge 4/4 II with a push-pull train is crossing the Wiesener Viaduct between Wiesen and Filisur, Switzerland.
Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Poc o² 23:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 23:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shadow on the left, but I like it!--XRay ^talk 08:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 09:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kinda blurry. --Alex‘s SeeSide 14:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 18:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
scarcely Support The shadow in front is not beneficial, but it's not that much disturbing. The sharpness could be better and I guess it is not optimal because Kabelleger was in the shadow and make this shot out of a dark surrounding. ISO 100 may be bot the best decision. But it's good enough for QI and the phenomenal view makes the point for me: over all a worthy FP. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice but quite soft! Could you remove the slight CA, please? It is not soooo much but it is very visible against the white snow. --Kadellar (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the nomination. I'll do a new RAW export tonight and try to address the issues. --Kabelleger (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a wondeful place, a stuning point of view, and the contrast between the red train and the snowy "scenery" is very nice, and I'm trully sorry when looking at all the support votes, but really, when I open the file in full size, I don't see any part sharp...--Jebulon (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have uploaded a new version. CA are removed, brightness adjustments, a bit more space at the top, slightly warmer color balance, sharpened. You may need to press SHIFT+reload in order to see the new version. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, thanks, Poc o² 18:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. --Ivar (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality of the latest version OK to me. Composition is - TOP. --A.Savin 19:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for reworking. --Kadellar (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 18:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! Halavar (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  23:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. --99of9 (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations for winning a contest WLM 2013 with this photo! --Ivar (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 29 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teatro Baralt by Beria.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2013 at 17:47:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Beria -- Béria Lima ^msg 17:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Béria Lima ^msg 17:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Very colorful, though sharpness could be better and a bit of noise on the black panes. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 13:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow factor. Royalbroil 19:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
should be rotated slightly CCW. After correction I will vote with pro. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish the lighting was more favorable --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ ArionEstar (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. J Kadavoor J e e 16:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I might usually prefer a stronger sky behind it, but in this case it works well with the light yellow. Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 01:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment is seems quite tilted. Tomer T (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barack Obama - Cité de Dieu.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2013 at 22:32:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pete Souza - uploaded by Damiens.rf - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad cut. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting composition, weird crop. Very much, appears to me as a snap-shot --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bondinho do Pão de Açúcar.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2013 at 13:25:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Halley Pacheco de Oliveira - uploaded by Halley Pacheco de Oliveira - nominated by ArionEstar (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice view, but perspective distortion, the cabin is out of focus --A.Savin 18:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nominationArionEstar (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spinning Fire.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 10:42:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. It's a strong, striking image that I think would have been better if it had been able to focus on a single one, the top one. Its center is not blown, and overall it looks better. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 11:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop, no "wow". --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, your comment doesn't help, please define how you see "wow" --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, you cannot ask somebody to define what is "wow" for him...--Jebulon (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, I can ask. If I feel, the reason of oppose is cryptic, I can surely ask for a clarification. That helps me understand the viewpoint in an objective way, and if its possible I can fix the issue. In this case, the lack of "wow" may be because there are composition issues, or may be the image does not have enough colors, or may be its not of a statue or building in broad daylight, who knows ? I feel its better to seek clarification instead of guessing around. And of course, the reviewer may not respond, as is the case mostly here. What I don't understand is that, the reviewer can speak for himself, or herself, do you need to actually provide him a voice ? Believe, its somewhat unsolicited, especially as your comment doesn't have anything to do with the review of the image --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Apparently no interest from people.

File:Türi Kesklinna kalmistu.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2013 at 17:31:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Amadvr - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The atmosphere is similar to File:Telleri kabel.jpg but the composition is not as interesting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as said in QIC. I like abandoned cemeteries and their mood is captured here very well. --A.Savin 12:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually this isn't abandoned. Or well, it isn't in active use either, but more like a park/cemetery, where burials are allowed in special occasions (according to the Türi cemetery regulations). Kesklinn means "city center" and this is one out of 6 cemeteries in Türi. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support i am not fully convinced (the photographer seems to not really knowing what to photograph) but I really like the photo--Pava (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness, color seems not natural. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. I find it hard to find something to focus on in this photo. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Artistic-nude-brunette.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2013 at 13:41:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Black and white artisitc nude created by Destailleur - uploaded by Destailleur - nominated by Destailleur -- Destailleur (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Destailleur (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose nice body, good quality, but not the same or comprehensible charming pose like here File:Fine-art-nudesunpine.jpg, the pose with the hand at the backside looks unnatural and the shot is a little bit to dark IMO too, over all a nice and good nude art, but not FP for me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree full with Wladyslaw. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a nice nude art like others. Nice shot, but nothing special. Not FP for me too. --Slick (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wladyslaw --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bud cut (down)--Pava (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Das Motorrad mit den Skiern von der Seite - CH-BAR - 3241064.tif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2013 at 10:21:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Swiss WW1 soldier biker on a Motosacoche motorcycle/snowmobile crossover. Created by an unknown photographer - uploaded by Swiss Federal Archives - nominated by Kelson --
Support -- Kelson (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere. Sharpness is acceptable given the date and the 38 MP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and interesting object. — Draceane ^diskuse 18:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Very interesting. Acceptable quality considering its age. Royalbroil 19:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Anonimski (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting image and good quality Halavar (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  23:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleclown (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Capri - 7224.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2013 at 17:56:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A Cordwainer making shoes, Capri, Italy. Created & uploaded by Jorgeroyan - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the distortion in this picture, but it seems that focus is on the door and not on the shoemaker, which is a pity because it's an interesting image with a good composition. --Kadellar (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Indeed, its an interesting image. The main issue with me is that I think a slightly wider view and greater DoF were required for a better composition --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very interesting and social documentary image, composition works for me. I have no problem with the DoF because the whole scenery is of importance not only the shoemaker. I would say that it is even better that sharpness is on the door because than on the shoemaker because there are a lot of photos where the shoemaker is clearly visible which had not been the case with a different DoF. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't expect more DOF in such a candid, limited available light scene. Focus on the tool/hand is preferred; but still a worthy shot. J Kadavoor J e e 10:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Please add a description above. Yann (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a description. J Kadavoor J e e 06:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great documentary image. Easy to find fault in any image but overall this one works. -- Colin (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pava (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 11:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Chengdu F-7 Pakistani Air Force.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2013 at 14:32:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Michael B. Keller - uploaded by Threecharlie - nominated by FSCEM45212 -- محمد اسد حیات (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --محمد اسد حیات (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wash out colors. We have much better quality images of fighter aircrafts. Yann (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info --I uploaded an edited version with corrected color balance and contrast. Sting (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The vertical alignment of the plane makes for a static composition. Diagonal would have been better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clipped blacks all over the plane and strong vignette, both probably a result of overprocessing. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 07:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But not due to my edit ;D Sting (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info --New improved version uploaded: contrast, blue area in the center. And this time I corrected the vigneting too (didn't bother me previously). Sting (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann and Julian H.--.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann St1995 17:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fußballländerspiel Österreich-Ukraine (01.06.2012) 43.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2013 at 19:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw. Not only a good QI, but shows a referee in an attitude that is typical for his profession. This picture is maybe yet a symbol for referees. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And again, and again, ...? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what? A second nomination is explicit provided. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paskal 2013 resize.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2013 at 19:52:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by VitulinK (Vít Kršul), nominated by Draceane — Draceane ^diskuse 19:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Already QI, it has also encyclopaedic value. — Draceane ^diskuse 19:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose the strong overexposed parts in background (windows) are disturbing --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Taxiarchos and cluttered composition, overall. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add a description above. Yann (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The solar interior.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2013 at 22:01:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Slice diagram of the solar interior. All effects are done in vector! All info is from the Sun article. All by Kelvinsong—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. I like the style.  Richard [®] 23:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 12:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 14:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Very nice! ArionEstar (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. J Kadavoor J e e 16:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done --The Photographer (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question The effect of solar alos is very well done, what are the chances that this can be translated to Spanish? :D --The Photographer (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here: File:El interior solar.svg and a French one just because (File:L'intérieur solaire.svg)—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you are awesome :) --The Photographer (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anytimee—Love, Kelvinsong talk 01:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Halavar (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support High educative value, very good. Yann (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliantǃ Jonathunder (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support B.p. 17:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zaliv Na Koskite 1.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2013 at 20:46:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Stolevski - uploaded by Stolevski - nominated by Rašo
Support -- R ašo 20:46, 12 December 2013 (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 significantly below the 2 megapixels treshold

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.

--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama Pampulha.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2013 at 22:45:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andreborgeslopes - uploaded by Andreborgeslopes - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting crane on the left, bad clouds, unsharp, compression artefacts. -- -donald- (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination The panorama is even cut to the left. ArionEstar (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suricata suricatta - Oasis Park - Fuerteventura.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2013 at 10:47:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very cute photo. I don't think those colours are correct though. 131.137.245.208 12:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Correction done, I think it's better now. --Llez (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 01:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hooray for meerkats in general, of course. I also like their poses and the fact that they have dirty noses. However, I'm not convinced by this picture in terms of sharpness and lightning. --El Grafo (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shooting meerkats in a zoo is dead easy and they generally always look cute. These three are looking in an uninteresting direction and the angle-of-view including the blurry mound is not optimal. Technically nothing special either. There isn't enough here to be featurable imo. -- Colin (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fringing, artifacts, and unfortunate shadows caused by overhead lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walt Disney Concert Hall 2013.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 07:29:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Walt Disney Concert Hall with reflections from the sun in the evening
all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is already an English FP from a very similiar perspective. But imho the other photo has problems with barrel distortion due to stiching and my nominations shows slightly more of the enviornment at the right and has a wider crop at the top. I look forward to your comments. -- Tuxyso (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That EN:FP is not eligible to consider here as it has only a GFDL 1.2 only license. J Kadavoor J e e 07:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added it for comparision, because we have a lot of photos of the Concert Hall here. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Don't see s.th. excellent here beside of the interesting building. The weather is disadvantageous cloudy and the lower right part rather needless and dark and therefore not helpfull for the composition. File:Walt Disney Concert Hall, LA, CA, jjron 22.03.2012.jpg has problems IMO but is definitly a more considerably image than this. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tuxyso (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2013.07.07.-8-Godendorfer See Godendorf-Gefleckte Smaragdlibelle-Maennchen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 03:07:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hockei - uploaded by Hockei - nominated by Leitoxx -- — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 03:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 03:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for nomination my picture. But I can't imagine that it's good enough for FP. --Hockei (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ ArionEstar (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. J Kadavoor J e e 16:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Westdeutsche Lotterie -- 2013 -- 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 08:05:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In 100% view the photo looks really interesting (also the foreground with the leafs there). But in smaller size the dark foreground looks not really interesting. Have you tried a tighter bottom crop? --Tuxyso (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just tried another crop: This is the alternative: . May be the alternative is really better. (If so, I will nominate the other one.)--XRay ^talk 12:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like both versions and will support the version you choose, but the perspective seems to be over-corrected (please see note).--ArildV (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like it, and I'd even accept the clipping in the windows due to the very high contrast there, but it should be white and not grey then. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I will nominate the other one. Thanks for your comments.--XRay ^talk 15:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breitscheidplatz November 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2013 at 13:13:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Christmas market at Breitscheidplatz in the very centre of former West Berlin. I think the settings is a good compromise between DOF and noise level. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow is there. Very pleasant lighting to me and skilful choice of the composition with the skyscraper in the background. Some noise, which ought to be unavoidable. --A.Savin 19:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very colorful. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 18:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 17:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support Making good photos on German Weihnachtsmärke looks easier than it really is. You captured a good moment with less disturbing people near the camera and a nice composition. I wished at least at the left a wider crop to have the complete "Curry-Wurst" sign on the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but I am the only one who sees cutting edge really questionable? below, stool, sidewalk are out, the feet are almost cut--Pava (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Difficult shot to take, well done. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Echinodorus cordifolius 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 14:56:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A shot of two flowers of Echinodorus cordifolius. C/u/n by Prenn. Prenn → Talk 14:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prenn → Talk 14:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Very nice! :) ArionEstar (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. J Kadavoor J e e 16:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but not special imo, esp. regarding composition, light and motive. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Purekkari neemel.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 16:55:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Urmas Haljaste -- Urmas83 (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urmas83 (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lot of "wow" - looks like we're in the clouds. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning picture. — Draceane ^diskuse 20:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subtle in its beauty and beautiful in its subtlety. Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty amazing.-Godot13 (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! (Geocoding would be highly appreciated) --P e z i (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 11:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Laitche (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support super! --Pudelek (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, but technically strong oversaturation in the red channel. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 16:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support strongly Daniel Case's comment. He is definitely a poet.--Jebulon (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really great image! Halavar (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2010-06-26-angermuende-by-RalfR-08.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2013 at 22:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Ralf Roleček 22:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 22:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 17:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tree on top and the reflect is too--Pava (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villeveyrac, Hérault 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2013 at 10:44:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice landscape but not enough "wow" IMO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ the colors are somehow wrongly and unfavorable for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC) oppose removed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info It's the automn colors and in more at the golden hour but netherless I've uploaded a new version with an improvement of details and colors. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Christian, thanks for your correction, but I still think that the colors a too unfavorable. The clouds and the sky are too cyan colored. Take a look to other images with clouds and "blue" sky. Perhaps is the "golden hour" also a wrong time to take this kind of landscape photos?! OK, this is only my opinion. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed my oppose now. But think about the colors. Also at your other images. The colors are still strange. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done New version with less vibrancy -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality, good documentation, very impressive view --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow and subjects "so-so" also seems there is a layer of tissue above, I can not understand, is not bright--Pava (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Landscape wise, it's not evoking much "wow". There are no interesting elements where one can focus, the light is mediocre and the composition needed more thought to achieve a better balance. Sorry, doesn't work for me --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 20:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlin - Haus Behrenstraße 73.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2013 at 21:59:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support though crop on right and bottom might be slightly tight. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can proof if I can make a different crop hence this image was made by stitching of two images. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mortagne-sur-Gironde Civellier Mayflowers 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2013 at 18:04:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by by JLPC -- JLPC (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JLPC (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! --XRay ^talk 11:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 18:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting subject, very good light, sharpness, and composition. FP, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jebulon. Very good image. Halavar (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  23:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'll be boring (i'm sorry), but you can not vote for a photo where FP is completely ignored the background, the trees are cut badly, both right and left--Pava (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very harmonic Golden hour composition --A.Savin 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light seems favorable, but the composition looks somewhat busy. Probably its because of the trees and a bit of clutter, the background appears a lot busy and somehow becomes a bit distracting. --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 01:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vista Chinesa 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2013 at 16:35:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Halley Pacheco de Oliveira - uploaded by Halley Pacheco de Oliveira - nominated by -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition does not work for me. Midground and background distract each other. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry, tilted clockwise and has some compression artifacts. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good idea imho, but quality is not ok. Also, peoples distract me very much St1995 21:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Filigranski nakit 02.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2013 at 21:53:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Slavica Panova - uploaded by Slavica Panova - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image has very shallow DOF, aperture f/1,8 and shutter speed 1/1250 was not an appropriate choice. --Ivar (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many blurred areas --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar, and axial chromatic aberration is very noticeable. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very strong CAs visible. I think f/1,8 is a bit inappropriate = DOF too small. The black parts in the background are also disturbing. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a cropped version as an example to the Chromatic aberration Wikipedia article. -- Colin (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nice idea, but it will be more interesting to know the kind of the lens! Oh, I find this information in the exif data: probably a AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G lens. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is particularly relevant except to a gear nerd or someone wanting to rubbish Nikon lenses. Particularly the way you made the offending words bold! This is a common issue with fast lenses used wide-open. So I don't think you should have added that extra text to the article -- it will just annoy Nikon fans. -- Colin (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The words are corrected. "it will just annoy Nikon fans" --> this is the truth of this lens! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Support--R ašo 13:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weak "yes".--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 14:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two Macedonian supports come along in a hour. User:MacedonianBoy's only contributions to FPC have been this FPC and another current

Macedonian FPC -- Colin (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not completely true. I voted for picture of the year. And, am I not allowed to vote? I vote whenever I have time to do so. If it was a support, don't you think I would write negative comment, of some kind?--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 18:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Alchemist. J e e 14:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist. --P e z i (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination because of the existence of chromatic aberration as others suggested above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amargosa Opera House 01 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2013 at 07:25:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Amargosa Opera House (read, quite interesting!) all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think contrast is a little too low (the white looks unnaturally grey). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done King, I've uploaded a new version with improved contrast, corrected WB and better noise management on the sky. IMHO it is visibly better now. Thanks for the hint. I look forward to your comments. (BTW: I've nominated this image because I like the minimalistic composition). --Tuxyso (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neptuul (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty cool Poc o² 01:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Looks like a location for a Quentin Tarrantino Movie :-)  Richard  [®]  21:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. --Laitche (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 21:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 09:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Israel-2013(2)-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-Dome of the Chain (south exposure).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 16:28:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Godot13 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info see additional annotated images.
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image. Halavar (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ J Kadavoor J e e 02:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 11:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 15:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems simple, but is great.--Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some dust spots and the sky is a bit too noisy Poc o² 01:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be home Sunday and make touch-ups from the raw file.-Godot13 (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Temporary Oppose to prevent speedy promotion to give Godot13 enough time for the modifications offered. :) J e e 11:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)~~

Support Thanks. J e e 02:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very light NR in sky, dust removed, and some CA removed as well.-Godot13 (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Michael Collins "Free State Demonstration" March 13, 1922.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2013 at 05:43:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hogan W.D. - uploaded by Ramaksoud2000 - nominated by Ramaksoud2000 -- Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture has thick white border, could you remove it? — Draceane ^diskuse 06:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do it in about 10 hours. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs a slight restoration. Some white spots (foreground) tears and scratches should be removed IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jebulon, I fixed most of the obvious ones. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better, thank you. Very high historical and encyclopedical value, descent size, good technical quality, rare image. I support.--Jebulon (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jebulon. — Draceane ^diskuse 17:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Jebulon.--ArildV (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 21:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 09:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Kenilworth Castle England.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2013 at 18:08:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tilliebean - uploaded by Tilliebean - nominated by MichaelMaggs.
A beautifully evocative image of the ruins of Kenilworth Castle, uploaded by Tilliebean as a contribution to this year's Wiki Loves Monuments competition in the UK. This image was one of the top 10 submissions and was highly commended by the judges. -- MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image, indeed is atmospheric. The birds add to the overall atmosphere as well. But it appears, some of this atmospheric quality of the image, is contribution by software (feels overprocessed, I mean) and not of the photographer as he had captured the scene as it is. There is another issue with the composition, the wall on the left hand border is distracting. --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the quality isn't OK for me. Some artefact visible, a bit unsharp, ... and I'm not a fan from BW images. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others say, I like the atmosphere of this image and the b&w is an essential part of it. It is a bit oversharpened and a bit blurred in places but I'd forgive those. What is a problem for me are the large + shaped marks in several places in the sky. These are quite apparent in even the preview on the file description page. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality and editing issues as mentioned by others. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers St1995 21:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madeira Airport Runway RB.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2013 at 15:46:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by --  Richard  [®]  15:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restart of my nomination Madeira Airport Runway Extension from yesterday. King of Hearts had a point, that the runway on the left side seems bended. This is now fixed with an improved rectilinear projection.
Here I offer a picture with an deliberate encyclopedic concept: I wanted to show as much aspects of this bizarre building, which was winning the 2004 IABSE Outstanding Structure Award. The runway extension has a length of about 1050 meters, which i've underlined through the chosen location and perspective, which gives a great feeling of depth. On the left hand there is a motorway which leads through the building. On the lower right side of the building you can see a marina and an amusement park (weird). The right half of the picture shows the air corridor with the Ponta de São Lourenço headland. Above the Runway you can see the Pico do Facho Mountain. The runway is used by a landing airplane. Enough said, let's discover this things.  Richard  [®]  15:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --  Richard  [®]  15:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support great quality and high EV.--ArildV (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 16:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support JLPC (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 18:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very happy your withdrawn pic is back! --P e z i (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please remove dust spots. --Ivar (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed  Richard  [®]  12:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the fix. The removal of the central bulge has also addressed my other issue about the sea in the lower right, which no longer appears unbalanced. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support more than harmonic: rules of thirds: 1/3 water + 2/3 sky, 2/3 building + 1/3 ocean and additional perspective of the building. For me perfect. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funchal airport is definitely something to see :-). --PierreSelim (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I can't see something so impressive for featured picture. Yes, wery high quality and some encyclopedic value too. But where is runway?!! I can't see anything but ugly motorway crossing in centre of picture. --Kikos (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kikos. The image don't make sense, even after I read the description. What is it trying to illustrate? The coast? It don't look like an image of a building or airport runway IMHO. Perhaps it is taken from the wrong perspective. Royalbroil 19:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great documentary quality, good quality at all, the picture makes sense to show the concrete frame of the runaway. But nevertheless the impact at all doesn't work here as a featured picture. Not really harmonic for me. A picture doesn't get automatically harmonic by following certain proportion rules. The flat building let the image look very compact, this impression is increased by the strong clouds. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image lacks "wow". --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orangerieschloss November 2013 07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2013 at 21:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Orangery Palace in Potsdam. Create, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 21:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I would take out some grey and put in some blue into the sky. --P e z i (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dark sky combined with the warm sunlight look very good. No blue sky required :) The centered and symmetrical compositon works here. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ per Tuxyso. --Ivar (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting conditions. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per others, but why not this one, the same but with the entire stairs? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect perspective and composition. — Draceane ^diskuse 17:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
~~Support~~ Would have been great to have more of the stairs in both sides, maybe stuff for a panorama Poc o² 01:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur with the others and would recommend you add the version with the stairs as an alt. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to everyone who has voted and commented. Personally I think this crop is stronger from a photographic POW, and both version are useful imo. But if you like I'll be happy to add the second image as a alternative.. The alternative proposed is a different photo, taken with a different lens (25 seconds before). Regards --ArildV (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like including the stairs in the alternative, but I prefer this one; I think the alternative but would improve with less sky, so that the building would fill more space in the frame and be more protagonist. --Kadellar (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

--ArildV (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:15, 132 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support better crop, better sky, ... --P e z i (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, prefer the first one, the light and the composition are clearly better to me, the crop on the side seems optimal. --A.Savin 16:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better crop. But I agree with A.Savin that the colors appear better on the first - did you use the same WB on both? If not I would suggest copying over your WB settings. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All settings in LR (including WB) is identical. However, the photos are taken with different lenses (this one without a UV filter). I also agree with A.Salvin , the original image is much better (I dont support this version, I just added to it because you asked for it).--ArildV (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Orangerieschloss November 2013 07.jpg

File:Ramburiella hispanica female.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2013 at 18:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gilles San Martin - uploaded and nominated by Tomer T (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nice, but many light dustspots on the background. --Ivar (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Focus on her thorax; but looks great, overall. Dust spots? It seems most of them are dust on her fur. J e e 14:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Please remove dustspots and find a usage. --A.Savin 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Usage found. I can't remove the spots if they exist. Tomer T (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 01:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tomer T, Ivar and A.Savin, I uploaded a version without dust spot and a little less expo, is it good like that? --Christian Ferrer 12:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support No further objections from my part. Great image. --A.Savin 13:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAlborzagros (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spitfires on the airstrip near Schijndel (Netherlands) (1945).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2013 at 20:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Anefo - uploaded by Jan Arkesteijn - nominated by Jan Arkesteijn -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice atmosphere, good sharpness for a historical picture. Anonimski (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per composition - the back of the plane is much too close to the left side. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Anonimski - very good iamge. Halavar (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sankt. Moritz Kirche Sauders Villanders 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2013 at 07:49:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed and nice. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ausgezeichnet, Wolfgang. Eine wirklich gelungene Aufnahme! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 17:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good.  Richard  [®]  23:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ ArionEstar (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. J Kadavoor J e e 16:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Already noticed in the QIC page, and I'm stil "wow"ed.--Jebulon (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Has no one noticed the massive unsharpness at the bottom (starting at the left foot)? I guess it is due to 62mm/f10 and not due to border unsharpness. For a repro-like photo imho not OK. The bottom front parts of the statue are out of focus (you can see it very well if you take a look on the gradient of sharpness at the bottom side of the statue, the wall at this position is also relatively sharp). Every macro-shot of a flower had been denied with such a DoF problem. Sharpness and quality at the other parts are very good as already pointed out by the other reviewers. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the focal plane isn't parallel because of a raised position of the statue.  Richard  [®]  13:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 16:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Palacio da Alvorada Exterior.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2013 at 11:30:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ricardo Stuckert - uploaded by Limongi - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please refrain from random nominations and quick withdrawals; the log is already overloaded and frequently returns "data read timeouts." I have to manually move the contents frequently to ensure smooth running of the bot. See this too. J e e 11:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the case of the image, is very sharp and was photographed at the right time. ArionEstar (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Stunning compo, but denoising/sharpness problems --A.Savin 17:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not mine, but I'll try to put it sharp, reducing the noise. ArionEstar (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reduced the noise and improved contrast. ArionEstar (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not any better. Btw, noise reduction and sharpening are contradictory. --A.Savin 19:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per A.Savin. Great when viewed at a smaller size, but the problems mentioned are very significant in full resolution. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Autignac, Hérault 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2013 at 15:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here are the colors strange too for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean there is too much saturation? What shocks you exactly? general tint? WB? I've only put a little less blue tint but the colors, although clearer, are very similar than the raw file. There is less saturation than in the original file, I only played on the vibrancy. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done New version with less vibrancy, if you have an idea to do better, please say it to me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice golden hour and diagonal line. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, there is decent light and there is good use of diagonals. But what's special about the subject ? The scene looks commonplace and I am unable to find much "wow" --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King & I like the landscape. --A.Savin 12:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Fabulous mountains! ArionEstar (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. J Kadavoor J e e 16:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dey.sandip. Boring. --Kikos (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dey. --Pava (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have you increased clarity in Lightroom? For me it is overdone and the photo has to much microcontrast and black. IMHO the photo lacks the typical soft light of the golden hour. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Tuxyso, you were right I increased clarity and now I uploaded a new version with little less clarity and little less microcontrast but it's the evening, the sun is very close to the horizon, and all is very contrasted at this hour. What do you think now? -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Christian, the difference is subtle, but it is imho definitely better (especially the grass in the foreground). At the moment I still hesitate to support because the motive is not that spectacular and outstanding - but you have just enough support for this image. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 12:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Jupiter third red spot.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2013 at 16:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by User:Ethically Yours - nominated by User:Ethically Yours -- Ethically Yours (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support High educational value; high resolution image. Ethically Yours (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, this picture has its value; however it's blurred and moreover it's full of artifacts. — Draceane ^diskuse 17:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Blurred, bad quality. Try COM:VI St1995 20:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose However interesting this is, I don't think the quality justifies FP status. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vao tornlinnus 14-05-2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2013 at 16:45:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Vao Tower House, all by Ivar (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although its a quiet motif, the picture has tension. Quality is very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Bartz (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lighting is decent, but not finding much to cheer about this photograph. Trees are also partially obscuring the buildings --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is excellent, object is interesting, but somehow it just doesn't seem that outstanding. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The relatively low-contrast light in combination with the foliage/branches create a relatively fuzzy look. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 12:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support I partly agree with Julian and Kruusamägi. On the other hand, I appreciate the very high quality and the typical spring colors (not spectacular, but typical of this part of the world). Good EV.--ArildV (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Israel-2013(2)-Aerial-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-Temple Mount (south exposure).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2013 at 00:46:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Godot13 (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Taken from a helicopter, at least 1,000 meters from the walls of the Temple Mount, with hazy and intermittently overcast skies. The left and right borders are not cropped, unfortunately there was no more room to give.-- Godot13 (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 01:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 07:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Looks good and interesting. Two questions: 1. Could you better work on the verticals? Some are leaning in, some are leaning out? 2. (just for personal interest) What objects are there at the very right directly out of the wall? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1-Many of the structures on the Temple Mount are not at right angles... but I will try and tweak the verticals. 2-It is a cemetery, in this image look at the foreground along the eastern wall.

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Framing feels slightly haphazard to me, but very nice view. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the effort. Good EV.  Richard  [®]  21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! Halavar (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joseph Ducreux (French - Self-Portrait, Yawning - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 00:21:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Joseph Ducreux - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Crisco 1492 -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as in EN. J e e 02:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 12:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — TintoMeches, 23:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Corneilhan, Hérault 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2013 at 12:29:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one taken an other day from the same point have a better quality but the composition is maybe less good. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But the light on the other photo is more interesting. A centered composition as on the other photo can also work. I would prefer the other one also from a compositional point of view because on the nomination here the church is placed too close to the border and gets less attention as on the other photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination You're right the light of the other one is much better, this is also why the quality is a bit better. Better light = better quality. Thanks -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:King's Balance Structure.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2013 at 16:01:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad timing? The whole central motif is turned away from the sun - whether one like it or not - I'am not. Even when applying this method on purpose I can't see a special drama here, quite contrary it feels only bad timed. Is there a reason for the centerstacked composition?  Richard  [®]  21:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition does not work. Foreground cuts elements of the background. --Tuxyso (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Dey.sandip (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castillo de Malbork, Polonia, 2013-05-19, DD 57.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2013 at 00:56:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Malbork Castle, UNESCO World Heritage Site, located near the old city of Malbork, was built in the 13th century by the Teutonic Knights and is the largest castle in the world by surface area. All by me, Poc o² 00:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 00:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 07:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose A QI but nothing special in terms of lighting or detail offered. -- Colin (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose With Colin:a quality shot, but light and/or composition are imho not special enough. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination A pity, being there the subject has a big wow effect to me, but obviously the realisation was not the best Poc o² 14:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Oppose Per Colin and Tuxyso. Shame, that there wasn't better weather, especially sky and clouds. Halavar (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fish in El Manglillo 8.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 18:27:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light seems good, but the composition is somewhat cluttered. The crop on the left hand side is not favorable for the composition either. --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no "wow" effect, sorry St1995 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Photographer (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leeds Corn Exchange HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 07:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the use of B/W, it makes the lines jump out at you. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ ArionEstar (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. J Kadavoor J e e 16:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the B&W, it lets the lines stand out. Not a big fan of perspective distortion, though. Kleuske (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You have to bear in mind that even though I was using a wide angle lens, the natural shape of the architecture inside this place is oval and not circular in nature. Mdbeckwith
  - Comment I did. Notwithstanding architectural choices, I very much dout doorways are leaning like this. Kleuske (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 01:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works really well imo. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gomphrena globosa Single.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2013 at 00:23:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nirmal Dulal - uploaded by Nirmal Dulal - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main object are not in focus and have no details and are also partially hidden behind the very distracting foreground. Lot of noise in the background.--ArildV (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not me who shoot the picture, but from what I saw, it is only focusing on the middle flower. All that is wrapped is defocused. ArionEstar (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2013 (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: subject is blurry - —Mono 01:20, 18 December 2013 (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.

Support--सृजना (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eugène Atget, Three Prostitutes, rue Asselin, 1924–25.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2013 at 07:59:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eugène Atget - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
why ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marine Drive Kochi Night View DSW.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2013 at 18:33:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Augustus Binu - uploaded by Augustus Binu - nominated by Bellus Delphina -- Bellus Delphina (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bellus Delphina (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strongly overexposed parts --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not reach the required quality bar (a lot of overexposure, less details). --Tuxyso (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown building in the middle is obvious even at small size. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lights are very strong.--XRay ^talk 18:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is only 834 pixels high, should have at least 1250. ArionEstar (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much overexposed St1995 17:40, 17 December 2013 (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 all the comments above. The nomination has no more chance to success now. Sorry, and try again asap !--Jebulon (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2013 (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:2013.08.04.-12-Ladenburg-Gebaenderte Prachtlibelle-Maennchen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 16:00:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 11:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Barcex (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Great focus on head; but failed to align the camera for such a 2D subject. One more FP there; but I prefer the one mentioned first. J e e 12:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isn't a 2D object. In the way you say I couldn't catch the face as here. Compare with this. --Hockei (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK. J e e 09:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The head area is really good, but I have to agree with Jkadavoor. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good St1995 21:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bač fortress (Bačka tvrđava) 2.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 15:03:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ ArionEstar (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Ineligible to vote, less than 50 edits, sorry --A.Savin 16:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support also due to the birds --A.Savin 16:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Interesting place. But just a hair oversharpened. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 08:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 11:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but sharpening is too much in my opinion. Doesn't ruin the photo, so I won't oppose. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 21:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cairina moschata momelanotus head.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 18:26:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much blurred areas. — Draceane ^diskuse 20:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Support —Mono 23:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me is very good--Pava (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have to agree with Draceane, the sharp area is quite small. It's excellent in smaller resolutions, though. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Justizpalast at dusk.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 10:25:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really like this image, and I think I may have given up too early on my previous nomination. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the lights of the cable car is disturbing the building picture quite a lot, the wires are not a benefit but inevitable. Over all the image has partial curious areas with lacking sharpness. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Wladyslaw, the light trails here are distracting. Very often they enhance the composition, but I don't think they are doing the image any favors here. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative without streetcar[edit]

Info all by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
better than the 1. candidate, but I'm not really convinced because of the light now on the right. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Wladyslaw, you are right. I've uploaded a new version that contains much less aggressive light trails and appears generally more balanced --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support now --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 14:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Justizpalast at dusk 2.JPG

Böhringer, did you intend to support the alt too? J e e 14:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably, the image that the author prefers is the second, because it is with the errors corrected. ArionEstar (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paldiski raudteejaama peahoone.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 17:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Paldiski station building, all by Ivar (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 18:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks wow. --Kikos (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 11:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lighting is quite nice. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don't like the aslope view at the building --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but nothing special for a FP (IMO), sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 21:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon --Pudelek (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peitz 08-13 img1 Molkerei.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 16:25:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info In Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Industry there are just few pictures esp. when we neglect all the windmills. I just thought to add my contribution, as I like the motif and lighting.
Support --A.Savin 16:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very complaisant view, harmonic diagonals, very good technical accomplishment --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 11:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 16:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 21:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good picture, and useful nomination.--Jebulon (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:York Minster HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2013 at 19:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strong distortion, issues with sharpness etc. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is not OK (overall sharpness, extreme border unsharpness, noise, some CAs). Composition is average (de-centered). --Tuxyso (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e

File:Trinité Grandes Heures Anne de Bretagne.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2013 at 16:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jean Bourdichon - found, stitched, uploaded, restored and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this vision of The Holy Trinity, miniature from the Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany, Queen consort of France (1477-1514), by Jean Bourdichon, painted between 1503-1508.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request it is tilted and/or distorted? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because it is a scan of a folio of a 1500's manuscript. "Manuscript" means "hand made". It is not a building, it is not a rectangle. The middle of the open book is strictly straight and vertical, that was my "guidelines". Of course it is not distorted nor tilted. Just real life (a bit rotated nevertheless). Are paintings in Lascaux Cave tilted or distorted ? Therefore there is nothing about geometry I could correct without betraying the truth.--Jebulon (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aha, and OK, thanks for the clarification. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome.--Jebulon (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportVery good work and high HV. --JLPC (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per JLPC. Great work Jebulon! Halavar (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 15:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a lovely restoration. Jonathunder (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very good work on the restoration, almost flawless --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--R ašo 18:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Comment Слава Богу Comment AMИH--Jebulon (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Македониум - Крушево.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2013 at 00:35:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Petkovskiot - uploaded by Petkovskiot - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ ArionEstar (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. J Kadavoor J e e 16:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--R ašo 18:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Made me stop mid-scroll and go "What's that?" Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support With Daniel. I would prefer a fully symmetrical crop (wider at the left, or tighter at the right). --Tuxyso (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support...and find it. Wonderful! J e e 17:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Finally, an interesting architecture even though the light is nothing special to talk about. Also there seems to be some amount of vignetting. Please fix. --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weak "yes".--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 14:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious voting here and this candidate. Suspect canvassing. -- Colin (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or ignorance; a fair warning may enough. J e e 14:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for what? Expressing my opinion for both images? What makes you think that it is suspicious? Did I comment about the comments of the others? No. --Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 18:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just to inform you, because you haven't seen everything, and yet you claim something that's not true. This picture and the other one are part of the public call (project) Wiki loves cultural heritage. These images cannot escape my eye since I am part of the commission (six members) that decides the final results. Therefore, I have seen and I know these images even before they were nominated. Best--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 18:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Никола, I used the word "ignorance"; "inexperiance" may be more suitable. From the page history, you can see how careful we are treating every nominations, to update description, adding categories, finding possible usage... I appreciate your nominations here; but adding so many supports from the same community is not very useful for a fair review. Better you can make a nomination and wait to see what regular reviewers say. (Just my personal opinion, no community guideline for it; so take it or not.) J e e 02:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I see. Regs...--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 10:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a postcard from the 1970s --ArildV (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frauenkirche München abends.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2013 at 23:55:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald (keb) 23:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald (keb) 23:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info Also compare this FPs from the same perspective: File:Frauenkirche Munich - View from Peterskirche Tower2.jpg, File:Frauenkirche Munich March 2013.JPG. --Tuxyso (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But only this image shows the illumination of the building. :-) -- Wolf im Wald (keb) 01:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Info Taking the image, I had to use ISO 400 (although I used a tripod), because the people on the observation deck where in motion all the time and therefore the floor (made of wood) oscillated noticeable. I think, you can't take a sharp image from this perspective without high ISO and short exposure time in the evening or at night. -- Wolf im Wald (keb) 01:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support An advantage of your photo is that is shows the Frauenkirche without scaffolding and without cranes. Resolution is relateively low, but detail quality very good. Have you slightly downscaled due to noise decrease and sharpness enhancement? --Tuxyso (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is a cropped version. 2. I reduced the resolution a little, because of the clear noise. I think an upload in higher resolution only fills the servers without any additional benefit of quality. -- Wolf im Wald (keb) 17:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support very nice! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The blue hour is interesting. Nice job ! --Dey.sandip (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow support Bellus Delphina (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to have a twilight version of this FP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jebulon was there recently (pictures to come)--Jebulon (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 07:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grand Canyon (Arizona, USA), South Rim nahe Tusayan -- 2012 -- 9.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2013 at 06:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A refreshing composition - I like how the canyon is framed by the trees in the foreground. Great lighting! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 12:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly as said by King Christian Ferrer 16:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lazy composition; sky takes up most of the scene, trees don't so much frame as obstruct most of the view. The only positive this photo has is nice lighting.Fotoriety (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The idea of using trees for framing was good and the light is also quite nice illuminating the vista beyond. The issues that I see are a) The photo does not look balanced, there is a bit more sky than probably required and mostly the sky is not that interesting b) The trees are positioned in such a way that they are obscuring the view, and as view is the main subject this is kind of distracting. I am sure you must have taken some efforts to capture this, but there are issues with the composition, unfortunately. Appologies. --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 16:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not convinced by the composition either. It's slightly too much tree per canyon. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Le ito xx 13:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jornada de las Estrellas de Balonmano 2013 - 50.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2013 at 12:26:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Raquel Caño about to shoot to goal at the Spain Handball All Star Game 2013, held in San Sebastián de los Reyes, Madrid, Spain. Created, uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice action. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice but perspectives to remove a bit --Christian Ferrer 12:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean, sorry, could you explain that again, please? (also in French if you want). --Kadellar (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos, I think that the image would be better if vertical lines in the background were straight. --Christian Ferrer 13:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ok, perspective corrected. I didn't think that was important in this case. Sport pictures are usually tilted too. --Kadellar (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Maybe not very important but better anyway --Christian Ferrer 13:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moment well captured in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Turn685 (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks you very much to you all for your support! --Kadellar (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teba, Kemerovo region, Russia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2013 at 13:18:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The village of Teba, Kemerovo region, Russia. Snow depth of 1 meter 80 centimeters. Air temperature -33 degrees Celsius. Created, uploaded and nominated by Staselnik -- Staselnik (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Staselnik (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the picture is too much blurred for me, although I find it interesting. — Draceane ^diskuse 15:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Support St1995 17:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, per Draceane. Quality & resolution barely at QI threshold & also a bit too much of the sky, doesn't fit the Rule of thirds, cropping would push the size below 2MP. I like the atmosphere though. --A.Savin 18:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motive, but bad quality. -- -donald- (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo, but clipped areas and small resolution. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barack Obama with artistic gymnastic McKayla Maroney.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2013 at 08:56:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info President Barack Obama jokingly mimics U.S. Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney's "Not impressed" look while greeting members of the 2012 U.S. Olympic gymnastics teams in the Oval Office, Nov. 15, 2012. Steve Penny, USA Gymnastics President, and Savannah Vinsant laugh at left. Created by Pete Souza - uploaded by Sepguilherme - nominated by me -- J Kadavoor J e e 08:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J Kadavoor J e e 08:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amusing, yes, but the composition is not very good. It is not straight (see the top of the door), and people are cut off awkwardly at the left. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's very rare to have a freely licensed picture for a popular internet meme, since the people creating things like that usually don't care about copyright. However, I agree with King of Hearts. Tried rotating and cropping it (see below). --El Grafo (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is most challenge in candid photography; if the photographer take time to compose, the subjects get bored, and get only a "dead" photo. :( J e e 10:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good. I also like the laughing people in the background - composition is OK for me: Obama placed inside the door frame, McKayla Maroney between door and bookcase. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Tuxyso. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Rotated and cropped, but now the feeling for the depth of the room is gone. --El Grafo (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better before. Who cares for the architecture of the room if it's not straight. This crop looks like a passport photo...--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Honestly, after a second look at it, I don't like it neither. Might be more recognizable as a thumb in an article, but that's all. --El Grafo (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Actually I think this crop is pretty good now! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. :) J e e 06:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew something was wrong with that sentence … ;-) Mnemonic for future reference (via TBBT): I don’t care for perchloroethylene, and I don’t like glycol ether. --El Grafo (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who monitored several people related groups in Flickr, I know how difficult capturing people on the right moment. We can align and set the camera, compose the frame to avoid cuts and outs, ask the disturbing people to go away, ... but finally we miss the exact moment we want. In fact, I'm wondered by DS' comment below. Pete Souza might be learn from us. J e e 09:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Photographically, its just couple of people with funny faces. If its portraiture, I don't see any thought put on composition or usage of lights. --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Dey.sandip: Special with this photo is not the light setting, but the people (US President !) on the photo and their expression. More Wow inside than most of the other portrayals nominated on FPC. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I usually do not vote for "official" pictures, but this one is very funny and nice. The quality is top (good advertisement for the presidential watch brand, and the young lady should have paint her nails with a bit more care IMO...). And do you simply imagine what kind of photomontages we can do now with this picture ? Yes, we can !!--Jebulon (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jebulon (offtopic): Which brand is it? --Tuxyso (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - [2] :) J e e 17:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hesitated at first when I saw the picture but after a while--ArildV (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. When I first saw it I wasn't sure but the more I see this cropped version the more I like it. It's a charming portrait. 131.137.245.207 12:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support FP of course --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very unfavourable expression. The support surprises me. --A.Savin 17:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The "unfavourable expression" (you're talking about their faces, right?) is the whole point of the picture. See McKayla is not impressed. --El Grafo (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know. Nevertheless, I don't like it at all. Very sorry. --A.Savin 18:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, OK, thought you might have missed that. Well, if you don't like it, you don't like it – absolutely no need to feel sorry about that. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 01:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With Dey.sandip and A. Savin. Funny but not to be featured. --Kikos (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It captures an internet meme quite well. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

The chosen alternative is: File:Barack Obama with artistic gymnastic McKayla Maroney 2.jpg

File:Crabier chevelu.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 10:57:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Pierre Dalous - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one Bellus Delphina (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 11:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2013-12-12 18-37-41 lumieres-noel-belfort.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 20:58:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it, but the sky is noisy and the light at the left gate overexposed.--XRay ^talk 18:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cypress tree - Lake Marion - Indian Bluff Park - Eutawville, SC, USA.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 18:35:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by iempleh - uploaded by iempleh - nominated by iempleh -- kip (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- kip (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors look a bit dull to me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lacks of fine details, but good composition -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 20:29:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by HereticPilgrim - uploaded by HereticPilgrim - nominated by HereticPilgrim -- HereticPilgrim (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HereticPilgrim (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apart from quality issues, the sun reflecting in the water is a big distraction and the top-down view is not very aesthetic in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:2013 FITA Archery World Cup - Women's individual compound - Final - 17.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2013 at 10:54:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pyb - uploaded by Pyb - nominated by PierreSelim -- PierreSelim (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I found this photograph an impressive illustration of sport usage of compound bow. -- PierreSelim (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Compositon and motive are very good, but the light is unfortunate: Nearly all parts of the main motive are in shadow. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Exactly same opinion as Tuxyso: the light prevent from a clear support. A pity.--Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The square crop does not work, though the scene itself could have been interesting. There is also something at the bottom right corner, that is very distracting --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A full view of the scene File:2013 FITA Archery World Cup - Women's individual compound - Final - 16.jpg. Pyb (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background, due to the small focal length. J e e 14:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Monfie (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate background.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chandiroor Divakaran New DSW.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2013 at 07:00:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Augustus Binu - uploaded by Augustus Binu - nominated by Bellus Delphina -- Bellus Delphina (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bellus Delphina (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice face, but disturbing background. Yann (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lettre de Montaigne au maréchal de Matignon, 26 janvier 1585.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2013 at 06:34:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info written by Michel de Montaigne, scan created by Libray of Tours, France, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info Manuscript letter from the 16th century, by a famous French writer. Scan at scale 1/1.
Support -- Yann (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting, high quality image and size. A transcription/translation of the text should be very helful. Info One can see, twice, a seal representing a knight with the CoA of the Grimaldi family. This is normal: the Grimaldi family (family of the Sovereigns Princes of Monaco) are from a "de Goyon de Matignon" descent (see en:Jacques I, Prince of Monaco).--Jebulon 16:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the transcription. Yann (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. Really interesting.--Jebulon (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panorama du Medracen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2013 at 08:32:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by vikoula5 - uploaded by vikoula5 - nominated by vikoula5 -- Vikoula5 (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vikoula5 (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Tomer T (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per consensus below. Tomer T (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky replacement. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. --Ivar (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Such a deception should not be accepted IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Le ito xx 19:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Florian Fuchs (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Point Mugu September 2013 006.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2013 at 06:12:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically not perfect (sharpness at the stones on the very right) but very special light from the side combined with ND filter usage. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, I don't like the darkish parts on the right. Long exposure of sea waves isn't anymore surprising for COM:FP and here I find the composition more interesting --A.Savin 16:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 21:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. --El Grafo (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support almost abstract, very nice! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Puente Mong, Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2013 at 18:44:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Mong Bridge span over teh Ben Nghe Channel in the District 1 of Ho Chi Minh City (former Saigon), Vietnam Poc o² 18:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Ivar (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. --Kadellar (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bottom views for bridges are in general interesting, but here is the surrounding too dark so that the view at the lattice is not very successful. So the encyclopedic value is not so high and the aesthetic view is just average. Pictures in dawn are mostly better than real night views. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. Halavar (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the top half of the image is great (like the lighting), the bottom half of the image is too dark and not any interesting detail is present. This kind of creates an unbalanced image --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don´t be afraid of empty space. --Caecilius Mauß (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Some of the black parts are perfectly fine for me, others less so, but overall I am not highly disturbed by them. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The night is black :) Centering could be improved, but nonetheless a very good and interesting photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I rarely find these images from total darkness really aesthetic. I'd definitely prefer a blue hour photo, but usually even one from the morning/afternoon. May be just personal taste. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Villeneuvette, Hérault 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2013 at 16:27:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality, nice framing, good composition and interesting warm light. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've never seen these trees in my entire life. ArionEstar (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, very amazing trees --A.Savin 12:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The subjects that photographers do not send me anything, but I like this photo, the shadows are below the limit, but that's okay --Pava (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Le ito xx 19:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Myrabella (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support In spite of the grey bin Poc o² 13:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Le ito xx 22:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frauke Heiligenstadt (Martin Rulsch) 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2013 at 00:44:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by DerHexer - uploaded by DerHexer - nominated by DerHexer. This is a portrait of Frauke Heiligenstadt who is not only a politician of the CDU party in Lower Saxony, Germany, and a member of the Landtag of Lower Saxony but also the current Minister of Culture in Lower Saxony. For me, this portrait is exceptional for its notability of the politician and the lack of mistakes that can arise when you don't have enough time to prepare a notable politician for a photo shooting. Thanks for participating in this vote. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need more portraits of this quality. Yann (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A technically well done portrayal, but nothing special (light, expression, motive). I guess this one could be a better candidate for German FPC where the encyclopedic / documentary value is of greater importance. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Same opinion (again !) as Tuxyso's. Very high quality, yes, but lack of international notoriety, I'm sorry. No enough extra lower-saxonic "wow", I'd say...--Jebulon (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Le ito xx 02:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's really sad that candidatures fail due to insufficient participation! I can live with opposes quite well, but that's really disappointing and demotivating. —DerHexer (Talk) 11:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DerHexer, in such as case it is no problem to nominate this file again (later). But from my experience I can say that insufficient participation is also a statement. Keep on high-quality contributing - it is nothing against you. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuxyso: Insufficient participation is an omnipresent, virulent problem of COM:FPC and should be approached as soon as possible. As I said, I would have preferred even more neutral or opposing votes which note a possible lack of international notoriety (although I emphasized the opposite in my nomination statement). But that only emphasizes the lack or participation in COM:FPC. Maybe we should consider inviting more people in participating in these votes, e.g. with SiteNotices, WatchlistNotices, etc. Commons has hundreds of great photographers who are able to judge images properly. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DerHexer: : I do not think that there is a general participation problem. Look at the current FPCs. The participation problem with your photo is that one cannot really criticise it (due to the high quality) but it is also very "normal" and less spectacular thus it does not draw the attention of reviewers.

Add: It is not fair, but also the motive matters a lot. I guess File:Manuela Schwesig 2.jpg would receive much more attention. You can imagine why :)

File:Pirin - Kazana shelter.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2013 at 22:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sligth ccw tilt and overexposure in the clouds Poc o² 01:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Per Poco a poco, but I like the picture really much. — Draceane ^diskuse 07:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tahkuna looduskaitseala.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2013 at 21:16:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Margus6 - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it does not appeal me. I am missing something special (light, composition). It remembers me too much on the plenty of forest shots of Bruce Barnebaum I could never make friends with. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mediocre composition, not much "wow" --Dey.sandip (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support no wow effect, but I like this atmosphere St1995 17:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I also truly liked the atmosphere, but it seems that image isn't that interesting for others. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maisons de Ghoufi, Wilaya de Batna 3.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 14:50:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Vikoula5 - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- kip (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Not eligible to vote on FPC: less than 50 edits --A.Savin 11:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vikoula5 (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues and it's a bit hard for me to find wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kruusamägi. A pity though, as there is only one Algeria FP so far. --A.Savin 12:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is not very good St1995 12:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nuts, the Healthy Breakfast.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 19:34:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Peter G Trimming, uploaded/nominated by St1995 19:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 19:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is needed. The tree at right is disturbing. Yann (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is to distracting imo. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Taxonomic classification only goes down to family level. I'd expect at least the genus to be identified for a common animal like this (better: species). One could also argue about in how far it has a meaningful title and description. --El Grafo (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination St1995 22:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Svea Livgarde-DSC 0225w.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2013 at 22:58:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Life Guard of the Swedish Army. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P e z i (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a fan of the composition or vertical framing here. --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I l ike it --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sentry box is sharp, but the lady (yes, it is a lady) is not. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the lady is sharp (his face is sharp, the gun is sharp). I think it's the tissues made in a particular material that reflecte the sun light and gives the illusion of noise. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is not "noise", but sharpness. Tissue ? The Pickelhaube is not made in tissue, and is not sharp neither, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --JLPC (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it - at least something different  Richard  [®]  21:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Significant posterization in the area close to the woman and sub-perfect sharpness. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question could you please give me a hint (notice) where you see posterisation? --P e z i (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the full surface of the door behind the woman shows posterization-like artifacts. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 20:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks! (with 400% view it's visible for me also). I had a look on the RAW: These are structures on the back wall of the sentry-box; only some pixels in size (looks posterisation-like because of my enhancing of the dark back wall) ... --P e z i (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is cw tilted, sorry for not seeing it at QIC Poco² 13:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- you are right! (0.46°) but it was CCW :-). New version uploaded. --P e z i (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better, thanks, Support Poc o² 18:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Манастир Трескавец.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2013 at 02:40:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Atlantida81 - uploaded by Atlantida81 - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened + perspective issues. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unnatural colours as for me, sorry St1995 17:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above comments.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giant sequoias in Sequoia National Park 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2013 at 10:46:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Giant Sequoias in Sequoia National Park photographed into the sky, similiar to this photo but not with buildings but with trees :)
all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! ArionEstar (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 18:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good! St1995 17:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's not easy to take this kind of contrasted scene -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice need a perspective correction, ha, ha, ha :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Monfie (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality! Le ito xx 20:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Myrabella (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a way to reduce the oe in the right part of the picture? Poco² 13:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Poco, what is "oe"? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Overexposure, Poco² 13:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Poco, technically it was not overexposed. But I've slightly reduced the highlights at the right. Better? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Support That was an improvement, thanks Poc o² 14:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Pieni 2 0622.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2013 at 13:03:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pieni Tietosanakirja - uploaded by LA2 - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regular print noise could be removed --The Photographer (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done ArionEstar (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You made a good effort, but noise reduction and excessive strong contrast have been destructive. An example with would be a good contrast is another version. I really want to see this photo in better quality and with all the birds, however, I think is not possible because the source is not very good. --The Photographer (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to a version with less noise reduction. If it is not good, I do not know what else to do. ArionEstar (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could help you with denoising but We need a better quality images in book to scan. I am sorry --The Photographer (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Park Heremastate. Brug over vijver.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2013 at 16:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impo noisy and a litte bit unsharp. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reducing noise and more sharpness. ArionEstar (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Halavar (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The wooden bridge is partially a bit too bright, can you fix that? Poc o² 01:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reverted to the original, since the edit changed not only noise/sharpness but also the colors and contrast and would have to be added as an alt IMO. I Support the original. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Bridge bit darker.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --JLPC (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Good atmosphere but improvable sharpness and compositon (I'd rather see the whole bridge) Poc o² 13:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could imagine some improvements in the compsoition, but it looks nonetheless really beautiful - like a painting. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, essentially per Poco. I don't like that the far end of the bridge, the area the eye is led to, is hidden. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can also experience as exciting, if you can not see where the bridge will take you to.--
Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 17:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anacridium aegyptium - 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2013 at 13:09:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portrait of an alive but quiet Egyptian locust (Anacridium aegyptium). It was at the sunlight, background in shadow. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Still, I'd recommend a slight tilt ccw to gain in symmetry Poc o² 13:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I followed your advice, new version uploaded. --Kadellar (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support A little more DOF would have been nice, otherwise the symetry makes it.  Richard  [®]  21:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Recommend a noise reduction only for background. The light was not the best but the quality is excellent --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your support. --Kadellar (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Le ito xx 13:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Auckland War Memorial Museum rect.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2013 at 12:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Antilived - uploaded by Antilived - nominated by Nikhil -- Nikhil (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Le ito xx 13:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krakow Klasztor Norbertanek.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2013 at 18:35:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Jar.ciurus -- Jar.ciurus (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jar.ciurus (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love the composition and lighting, but the WB is a bit blue. Could you fix that? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for your opinion. Yes, generally it is a bit too blue, but I don't want to fix that. I want it to be blue. It was very cold when I was taking this shot. Brrrr.. Also the WLM Jury opinion is: "The wonderful blue tones gives a chill to the viewer. Good composition and high encyclopedic value." -- Jar.ciurus 20:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, Support anyways. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The WB and the resulting tone are not appealing, appologies --Dey.sandip (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Great in some ways, I'm not a fan of the composition though. I don't think it really needs the half-symmetrical water reflection making it vertically centered, and it's a little tight on the sides. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- kip (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Not eligible to vote on FPC: less than 50 edits --A.Savin 11:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 17:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Sorry, the picture is clearly blueish. Will support if corrected. Poc o² 13:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Oversaturated, unnatural looking. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Le ito xx 21:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Laidu saar Küdema lahes.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2013 at 21:16:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Margus6 - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's nice, I really like the atmosphere. With relatively little to show in terms of a main subject, I think it would need a composition that is more special/interesting to make it featureable though. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 17:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Le ito xx 21:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tamme-Lauri tamm suvepäeval.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2013 at 21:47:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Urmas Haljaste -- Urmas Haljaste 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urmas Haljaste 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --XRay ^talk 08:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unable to understand what is featurable here -- Dey.sandip (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support well, I like the atmosphere. --A.Savin 16:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 15:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! Halavar (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 17:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Halo around the tree. Otherwise nice. -- -donald- (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC) * Comment Halo is the best thing in this photo!--Urmas Haljaste (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No enough wow to me. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The atmosphere is nice but the problems that were mentioned are significant imo. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Le ito xx 22:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Плаошник, Охрид.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2013 at 20:36:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Atlantida81 - uploaded by Atlantida81 - nominated by Rašo
Support -- R ašo 20:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can You remove gray frame? --Kikos (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks interesting, but I am missing some background information. Is it an HDR? Is is possible to have a wider crop at the top? And with Kikos. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky looks replaced, and quite noticeably so. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perspective problems in the rear part of the church Poc o² 10:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky is too red, looks oversaturated/unnatural.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Le ito xx 21:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andreea Raducan -2-.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2013 at 22:20:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by AdySarbus - uploaded by Okino - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the cut of the head isn't optimal. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely a nice motive, but with Alchemist and a lot of 100% black areas and thus detail loss. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous oppose-voters. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop unforgivable. Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the crop is just bad.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tuxyso Le ito xx 01:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Le ito xx 22:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chicago River from Lake Street bridge.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 10:37:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mike Boehmer - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness issues, over-processed --Dey.sandip (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice and a difficult photo to take, but there are significant banding issues in the sky and some similar artifacts in the water. Less noise reduction could help. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like it Bellus Delphina (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Huge wow. The quality isn't too bad IMO, and the only issue in my mind is the tight crop on the top. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per previous opposes; quality suffers at full resolution. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers, and tight crop (as KoH said). --Kadellar (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers even thou it sure has a lot of wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support colorful! St1995 17:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like this picture, but the colours are just a little bit much.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 14:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:SR 190 Panamint Springs Resort End Death Valley 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 10:41:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring scene, light appears slightly harsh, not much "wow" --Dey.sandip (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a strange perception of boredom :) --Tuxyso (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you have a problem with my review, I can refrain from reviewing your images. Let me know. --Dey.sandip (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem with your review. Please keep on reviewing. I answered only because your assessment "boring scene" is far from my personal perception - for me the scene with its interesting hills, dry desert ground, rising warm air from the street surface and the street diagonally wiggling through the photo was the reason for the nomination. Photos are always a very personal matter - I hope you have no problem with my answer. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The scene appeared boring to me, because it appears like a very flat landscape (with no proper point of attention) under a harsh light, which is giving it a washed out look. Cheers ! --Dey.sandip (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As much as I dislike strong editing at times, I'd really like to see some more mid-range contrast in this. It does currently look quite flat. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the hint. I've uploaded a new version. IMHO an improvement. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Yes, better. I like the depth of the landscape. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. --Kikos (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kikos, can you be more specific please. Especially with negative votes two words are imho not helpful - as I've said for previous votes of you: It should be no big deal with en-3 to write about possible improvements and what elements of the photo lead to your "No Wow"-assessment (light, composition, sharpness, motive,...). It is surely no requirement to do so, but I guess 99% of the photographers appreciate more precise negative comments than writing just "no wow" or nothing (as you've done in the past). --Tuxyso (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, a little bit. "No wow" means that this one for me is average roadside picture without any special content to be featured. Good composition and high quality is not enough to be featured and to place in frontpage. There must be something to catch. Next time, if You see my "No wow" (with my en-3), think about picture, not about me. --Kikos (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kikos, thanks for your clarifying words. For me a helpful and encouraging review weighs positive and negative aspects up and comes to a final conclusion. We spend a lot of time for good photos on Commons thus we should also spend a bit more time for informative reviews than just write "no Wow" - just my 50 cents. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Christian sent me a version with further improvements (local adjustments on the mountains) and on clarity. Thanks Christian! --Tuxyso (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for information: a new version, Christian exported the previous one in lower resolution. He has sent me a new version in the original resolution (thanks again!). I look forward to further comments and votes. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't see the Harley (or Corvette), but I have the sound in my ear when looking at the pic :) --P e z i (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support boring, but atmosphere is ok for me! St1995 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support not boring for me, I like the calmness that is send out in this image. I only would recommend to darken the image a bit, it seems to be a bit to bright. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I follow Wladyslaw's opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Le ito xx 14:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 14:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sparrige Schüppling (Pholiota squarrosa).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 11:01:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Light and composition are not very interesting, and I think at least one of those should be to make this special. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The composition is excellent. The one stalk fallen over even adds a bit of EV (not that is such a big deal on Commons). 131.137.245.206 13:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course, well done. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 11:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 14:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Holzmarktstraße November 2013 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 14:32:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Apartment buildings at Holzmarktstraße, Berlin. Built 1969-71 as the first WHH GT 18. Architects: Helmut Stingl and Joachim Seifert. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much vertical perspective correction. Buildings just look wonky having their vertical perspective altered but not the horizontal. -- Colin (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Otherwise people have opposed because of "perspective disortion".--ArildV (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. Tell me about it. I think it should only be adjusted if fairly small. You get away with it more if straight-on to a subject. Once you see a bit of the side, or take it from an angle, things start unravelling. If it is too much then the photographer has to either take the photo from further back or further up, or else make the perspective a feature of the composition. And sometimes a small degree of vertical perspective is not detrimental to the image (not all our shots need be architecturally precise). -- Colin (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have no problem with straight verticals - looks a bit like a T&S shot. But the motive and composition is imho too ordinary to become featured. I would suggest to give File:Holzmarktstraße November 2013 01.jpg or File:Holzmarktstraße November 2013.jpg a try. Nonetheless a nice shot at good light. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment/vote. I thought about the options you suggest. Personally, I chose this because it gives a cleaner picture of the high rises (the TV Tower in in the background makes perhaps the other pictures more eye catching). Imo the motiv is very relevant. The buildings have a great architectural relevance, they were the first in a series of high-rise that left their mark on Berlin's urban landscape. They are an example of East German (and modernist) urban planning from the 1970s. And they are visible from many places in Berlin. (thanks for always motivate your votes!).--ArildV (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. It is a fairly common composition, nothing special. I am sorry --The Photographer (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer St1995 22:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above comments.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 00:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:LRO Tycho Central Peak.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 18:37:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA (LRO) - uploaded by Originalwana - nominated by Anonimski -- Anonimski (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful sunrise picture, showing how incredibly sharp the shadows are on the Moon. -- Anonimski (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Loved the penumbra. ArionEstar (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please use only standard support, oppose, and neutral templates; the bot can only count properly formatted votes. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 22:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 00:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Mayagana Halli.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2013 at 18:56:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mydreamsparrow - uploaded by Mydreamsparrow - nominated by Bellus Delphina -- Bellus Delphina (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bellus Delphina (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Noisy, little detail, over-saturated, over-constrasted, color aberration episodes. I don't understand the reason for this exposure solution: ISO 800, 1/320. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Discordantly harsh color. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar Le ito xx 19:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar St1995 22:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 00:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Westdeutsche Lotterie -- 2013 -- 1-4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 15:25:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nomination instead of the similar image with another crop. -- XRay ^talk 15:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is better than before. A good architecture shot. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition. But, as mentioned before, clipped areas should not be grey. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've corrected the white balance. But I think it is impossible to change the color of any unlit part to white. I don't see a color problem. Sorry.--XRay ^talk 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry if that wasn't clear. I have no issues with the color or white balance. My issue is that the clipped areas were white originally, otherwise they wouldn't be perfectly neutral flat grey now, and this grey looks weird because it's obviously overexposure. Leaving it white would be better. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I really didn't understand. Which area do you mean? The building on the left side of the image is grey as the most parts of the building. The building on the right is grey too. On the buildings is also in daylight nearly nothing white.--XRay ^talk 17:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm referring to the brightest spots inside the windows. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I added notes for two example areas now. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks! Now I understand. But IMO there are small bright areas and this is not very important. I tried to reduce this areas and the look isn't much better. So I have the image left as it is.--XRay ^talk 16:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still see the perspective problem mentioned before.--ArildV (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've corrected the perspective, but the problem was minimal.--XRay ^talk 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Maybe I saw the old version.--ArildV (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the lights, and there is not the slightest consideration of the two trees on either side, but there are!--Pava (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 12:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 00:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Samantha with lunch-time take-aways.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 19:36:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Peter G Trimming, uploaded/nominated by St1995 19:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 19:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have liked a slightly larger depth of field. However, it looks good enough for me. Barcex (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--XRay ^talk 18:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Taxonomic classification only goes down to family level. I'd expect at least the genus to be identified for a common animal like this (better: species). One could also argue about in how far it has a meaningful title and description. --El Grafo (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral great shot, but the tail is too close to the edge, or even out of the box. but the photo is so beautiful that I'm sorry to vote otherwise, but perhaps also the light is not the best (vividness little, poor shine), but it is more than acceptable. --Pava (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good detail but too shallow DoF and unnatural/unappealing background Poc o² 13:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 00:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strike Suit Zero - Screenshot 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 16:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Born Ready Games - uploaded by hahnchen - nominated by hahnchen - hahnchen 16:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - hahnchen 16:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I admit the image is impressive. But still, it's a video game screenshot. IMO we shouldn't go down that path... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing wrong with video game screenshots; in fact, freely licensed ones are quite rare and should be treasured. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With Martin. What is the individual contribution here? Should we really feature screenshots?? --Tuxyso (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Commons is an archive of free images; it matters not where they came from. I do not see why there should be any objection to this other than aesthetics (and I don't have one). We have plenty which arguably are collectively created. Also, as noted, we have very few video game screenshots. A free one, if it's good enough, should be featured; it would encourage more publishers to license their games so that screenshots could be free and thereby expand the pool of available free images. Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tuxyso. I agree with Daniel Case about the need of such pictures in "Commons", but not as FP if criteria don't met (especialy this one, not extraordinary to me)--Jebulon (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not a fan of screenshots St1995 17:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing against screenshots per se, but when it comes to educational value an actual gameplay screenshot (like this one) would be much better. --El Grafo (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am going to nominate Screenshot 02 at enwiki. I chose this posed screenshot for Wikimedia Commons because it is more spectacular. This image is used in the English and Japanese w:Mecha articles, while the gameplay screenshot is used in w:Strike Suit Zero. - hahnchen 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing educational.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 00:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:2013 Longines Global Champions - Lausanne - 14-09-2013 - Agathe Vacher et Careena 5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2013 at 12:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pleclown -- Pleclown (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pleclown (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You captured an interesting moment and the photo has a good quality. The problem with this photo (especially for people who are not familiar with equestrian sports) is that one cannot really see what the barricade is because its start and beginning is not visible. Thus a wider crop which shows the scenery in a larger context had helped to get a better impression of the horse's task. Do you know what I mean? --Tuxyso (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand. The problem is, as you can see on this picture that the background is disturbing and sort of spoil the picture, hence the tight crop. Pleclown (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Peter's Basilica, Sant'Angelo bridge, by night, Rome, Italy.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2013 at 17:35:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saint Peter's Basilica, via della Conciliazione, Sant'Angelo bridge, by night. Rome, Italy-- Jebulon (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pretty much all highlight areas are surrounded by a neutral grey area from over-correction of overexposed areas. These would look a lot better if they were just clipped. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to correct.--Jebulon (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Fixed.--Jebulon (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment washed out elements on trees and bushes. --Ivar (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If not, you will claim "noisy ! noisy !". It is a night picture, so compromises are needed.--Jebulon (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose Overprocessed NR. --Ivar (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO too much dark, the same image in dusk would be better than this night view, even this one is not so bad like Puente Mong. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is a night view, indeed ! Same image at dusk will follow, of course I've got it !!...:) --Jebulon (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice night shot, high quality with lot of details, good composition and captured mood. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tuxyso --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Pudelek (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "blue hour", one would see the outline of the buildings better, so it's too dark --Böhringer (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you are right: it is a night shot. Therefore, it is dark (but one can see the line of the horizon nevertheless, as the night is not complete). Please wait a little, you will have soon here a "blue hour" version ! --Jebulon (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBTW, did you have a look on our POTD (16/12) ? Not too dark ? Mmmh? ;)--Jebulon (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

do you have a link to it? --Böhringer (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Templo Wat Arun, Bangkok, Tailandia, 2013-08-22, DD 37.jpg--Jebulon (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why you can not tolerate criticism. In this picture you can see the outlines of buildings. With your image the roofs extend into the dark. Otherwise, the picture is very beautiful but too little for my approval. --Böhringer (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Tuxyso, very nice night shot. --Kadellar (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 18:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! Halavar (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. --Godot13 (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice, but not good for that piece of tree on the left, but the rest of the picture exceeds every detail --Pava (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done! St1995 22:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, still there are some flaw is the pixelation in the top left and I'd make it a bit cooler to balance the predominant street lamps yellowish colors, anyhow FP to me Poc o² 13:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Le ito xx 20:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2013 at 07:09:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project. Image is aerial photo taken as part of the California Coastal Records Project; after an unsuccessful lawsuit to suppress the image by Barbra Streisand, it later spawned the Streisand effect. - uploaded by Cirt - nominated by Cirt. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE -- after a prior FPC discussion, the image has since: (1) Become a Valued Image on Commons, and (2) Successfully been promoted to Featured Picture quality on English Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, and Persian Wikipedia. For these reasons I feel it warrants reconsideration. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as previously. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heavily tilted, clipped whites. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... and again and again ... please rework simply this image! This image is still tilted and the quality isn't OK (it needs "perhaps" a Curve (tonality) correction). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Ivar (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've left a request for help with image improvement at Commons:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop#Streisand_Estate. -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1[edit]

Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the new CC guidelines, we must mention what modification we made to the original (to protect the integrity of the original author). So please mention the modifications too. :) J e e 18:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) J e e 02:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My thanks to Alchemist-hp for the improvements, -- Cirt (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, much improved, but still no wow for me. Valued Image, I agree, but not FP IMO. --Avenue (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Rotation & crop are fine, but the colour adjustment shifts shadows into a blue tone and the images loses detail due to the refined black point. A black point starting at the histogram's left should work. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info I uploaded a new version with a better color adjustment, I hope. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the changes, looks good to me now. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support As an image, it has improved, but its documentary value has decreased since it is no longer the image that caused the controversy. I'm still OK with featuring this version though. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality, bad crop, low details, no "wow" at all except scandal. --Kikos (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apart from the celeb-connection i see nothing special. No wow, no exceptional quality, no historical significance. Kleuske (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The improvement is very significant, but neither the clipping nor the lack of sharpness can be corrected through editing. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunrise at viru bog.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2013 at 08:50:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Abrget47j -- Abrget47j 08:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Abrget47j 08:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Neutral Look non natural, excesive noise reduction and too color vibration. Excellent composition --The Photographer (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Could be nice see EXIF data and geolocalization. --The Photographer (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually there is no noise reduction applied. Low contrast due to morning mist and vibrant colors because of sunrise. -- Abrget47j
Support Very beautiful. And the unsharpness is not that bad and entirely forgivable given the 45 MP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Yes, it is a beutiful composition and colors are really nice, as many other photos of this author. Still there seems to be something wrong technically as if the unsharpness and lack of detail were the result of some wrong exposure solution or poor gear (very high ISO, extreme HDR, poor lens ?) or even a posteriori manipulation. Or is it just the aethestic choice of the photographer? I know from my own experience that images taken with a D800 are usually very sharp. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Exposure is excellent, histogram proves it. My lens is first class. Have you ever captured photos in mist or fog? Or at sunrise? Where do you get the idea that it is captured with d800? It doesn't matter if you are usin D80, D800 d4 or Hasselblad, in fog you can't make sharp photos. You look too much at the numbers not at the photo itself. My photos are interesting and you don't seem to like it. But I thank you for your attention.--Abrget47j (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please address the photo only and abstain from making comments about the reviewers' methods and likings. No numbes (Exif) in this photo to analyze. Please allow me to disagree in that the fog is the main cause for the softness of the image. I would bet for an agressive denoising process in trying to compensate for a high ISO noise. But that is only a guess. As I already suggested elsewhere, it is not a sound practise to underevaluate the competence of the reviewers here, especially when we know little about them. The talent of new users is much welcome here, preferably together with some modesty... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I added EXIF data, specially for you. ISO is 200, so no chance for "high ISO noise". For D800, it is nothing, as you may know. I have no intentions to be modest. I am straightforward and will be in the future.--Abrget47j (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 22:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too blurred in full resolution IMO. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp at full resolution. IMO because of small aperture F/18, F/10 would have been better and would have given an image much more sharp if of course it was your intention to make a sharp image. However at low resolution, it's a nice image. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you can't capture a sharp image in mist. Believe me, even the foreground is affected by mist. Yes, the fog is not so deep and you see it only at distance but it's there also in the foregrund. I used different apertures this day and this one is the best. I use Nikkor 24-70 mm f2.8 lense and it is sharp at f18! Slow shutter speed is not an issue here because I have great tripod. Don't be afraid of small aperture. It might create nice colors and nice light effect. --Abrget47j (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice pic! (geocoding would be appreciated) --P e z i (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 20:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kizil Hauzen Bridge, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2013 at 10:05:49 (UTC)

2013, The main arc destroyed in civil war between Central Iranian Government and Azerbaijan People's Government, 1945
1840 by Eugène Flandin

Info created by Sj.jamali, Eugène Flandin - uploaded by Monfie - nominated by Monfie -- Monfie (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Monfie (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first image only has 2560 x 800 pixels. Height can not be 800, should be at least 1250. ArionEstar (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latter seems to have only 900 pixels high. ArionEstar (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the first one, The higher resolution was achievable. Indeed I had uploaded that by mistake, so I updated it now

Done. But about the second image it is the best available scan of this old painting. Even if feasible, I am not sure higher resolution of a small printed picture gives us better image.Monfie (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now yes, Support ~~the first image~~ both images. ArionEstar (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please use only standard support/oppose/neutral templates so that the bot can count the votes correctly. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support both, nice contrast. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First image is good, but the second one has rather low quality and can not be a FP. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question I do not really understand the nomination. Is it a set? Are both images nominated? According to some comments the images are assessed separately, thus they should be on a single nomination page.
Another point: The image is much larger than eligable. Width 960px instead of 650px - can you change it please. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is a "set nomination" and the whole set will be either promoted or not. As well, because these are panoramas their size in candidate page is larger than landscapes. Monfie (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Monfie, I think it has to solve the problem of the second image. There is a larger version of it. I think if you cut it a little bigger, to the point where the height is at least 1250 pixels, the problem would be solved. ArionEstar (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done now both of them are 1250 height. Monfie (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Perhaps would be well received @ en:FP due to its EV. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 05:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 22:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it should be seen as a set, then I can't agree with the nomination due to the very low quality of the second image. Kruusamägi (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fully support the first one, but the second image has quality problems and I don't see a reason for nominating this as a set. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support both are OK for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian Poc o² 22:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 20:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sinemorec - Butamiata beach (by Pudelek).JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2013 at 11:00:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you can not fix that sun? --Pava (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 22:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment too simple composition for me and it has curved horizon. --Ivar (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special, overexposure part of the sky + to much sky for me, to be featureable. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per --Alchemist-hp Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stara arhitektura 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2013 at 00:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Darkocv - uploaded by Darkocv - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Shadow and over saturated. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the shadow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to me like a shadow, it's very atmosphere and goes well with the photo, do not bother. only that you have to straighten the picture. Favorable vote if someone straightens (the photo, not the shade: P) --Pava (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversaturated + no "wow" factor. I am sorry St1995 22:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversaturated, shadow, no wow.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination because of the reasons given above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toronto - ON - Impression.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2013 at 19:35:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very good effort, unfortunately, IMO post, cable and red ads are distracting the composition. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good idea of composition but too much disturbings elements -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the impression is very good, but to many distracting elements in the foreground. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose principal subject covered by other entities, billboards cut in half, a street light that comes out of nowhere, a nice detail of a building in the foreground cut completely by a structure that has nothing to do. The idea is good, but this picture is chaotic, unbalanced, disproportionate and very very dirty --Pava (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Le ito xx 20:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to many distracting elements in the foreground St1995 22:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me the elements in the foreground reinforce the urban athmosphere. I like the opposition colors/greys too. --Myrabella (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You can hardly see the main subject because of the high contrast. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the main subject of this picture? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the CN tower because everything else on the picture is of no interest. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the meaning of this image has failed. The CN Tower is for sure not the main object of this image. To take just a picture of the CN Tower I had used better chances. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are better spots to take pictures of the CN tower because I have been to Toronto several times. Nevertheless, I still don't know what else would be the main subject. Neither the almost underexposed dark building nor the other objects seem to be of any interest to me. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montreal - QC - Gipfelkreuz Mont Real.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2013 at 20:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— TintoMeches, 22:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kleiner Waldchampignon Agaricus silvaticus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2013 at 23:13:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- H. Krisp (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- H. Krisp (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support good centring and quality -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 14:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice surroundings for the mushroom picture. --Kadellar (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support species-appropriate environment :-) --P e z i (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Le ito xx 14:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! Halavar (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Tower Bridge Lights.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2013 at 05:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good use of line. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "blue hour", one would see the outline of the buildings better, so it's too dark --Böhringer (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well, unfortunately I didn't catch any really interesting light trails during the preceding blue hour... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The building is a little bit dark, but it's still OK. --XRay ^talk 18:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A bit put off by the ghosting in this one. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The building is too dark. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that it needs a cw tilt, see the bridge vertical bars on the right Poco² 13:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I suppose the image would need a minor perspective correction. I have tried that but as a result the picture and its main motif suffer more than they gain. And since the distortion is not that bad - imo - I better leave the image as it is. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lots of wow with those 'floating' colored lights. The price is some noise and lack of detail in the building. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FRA-A73-République Française-400 livres (1792).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2013 at 09:32:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bank of France and Smithsonian National Museum of American History uploaded by Godot13, nominated by Yann (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info Very high resolution of an early French banknote issued during the French Revolution (1792).
Support -- Yann (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A slight restoration, maybe ? --Jebulon (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image is untouched (other than erasing spots and dirt from the black background only).-Godot13 (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: Yes, I was thinking what to do here? Seeing the file size, some restoration might be worth the trouble. ;o) What do you suggest? Yann (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Of all the designs on the pre-1800 French notes, this is my favorite.-Godot13 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 15:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palacio de la Reunificación, Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 02.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2013 at 14:28:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Reunification Palace (or Independence Palace) of Ho Chi Minh City (former Saigon), in Vietnam, was home and workplace of the President of South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Here ended that war when a tank of the North Vietnamese Army crashed through the gates on April 30, 1975. All by me, Poc o² 14:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 14:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting motive and architecture, solid composition, good light. I don't know really why, but the photo captures my attention. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. Congrats. No flaws to me, and high encyclopedic value.--Jebulon (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversatured, see nothing excellent in this standard building image, not even the object itself has s.th. special for me --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a new version with a reduced saturation (and the removal of some dust spots, as well), Poc o² 18:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But this was not the main point for my voting. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well captured; historically important. Added to article; as usual. J e e 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Wladyslaw. Sorry, I fail again to see something special for an FP. The composition? Maybe a symmetrical one with the fountain in the middle would have worked, I don't know, anyway here is no special wow for me. The weather/light conditions? For a photo on a rainy day this one is very well processed, but again nothing that would knock my socks off (just compare to this recent FP, for example, and see the difference). The quality? Yes, it's good and certainly enough for QI, but not extraordinary considering basic values like resolution/sharpness etc. The building itself? Well, maybe I'm a poor expert in architecture, but for my perception it's rather "just" a 1960s public building which looks quite utilitarian. And the fact that the photo is taken by a very valuable contributor to Commons is no standalone reason for me to say "it's FP". :)) --A.Savin 18:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope that you are not suggesting that the colleagues who gave a supporting vote in this FPC or in other FPCs of mine came to the same conclusion like you, that the reason for the supporting vote could be that I took the picture :) That would be somehow flattering but could be understood as disrespectful, at the same time. In this particular case the 5 supporting votes come from IMO great photographers, not from anybody. Poc o² 19:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, at least Jebulon is not well-known for overwhelming *-pro voting behaviour but for very competent but also very critical votes :) - thus I see no reason why he should have voted here with pro due to Poco. For me I can surely say that the support has nothing to do with the contributor but with the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, do I have to conclude that my vote is not competent, unlike that by Jebulon? For my part, I believe to have stated all possible reasons why this particular picture is not enough wow for an FP (it is difficult to elaborate wow, but I've tried it). If the last sentence appears disrespectful despite the fact that I haven't called anyone by name, feel free to remove it. (Btw, it's an open secret that FPC's by established users c.p. get more attention than those by newbies and hence have more chance to collect 7 support votes.) --A.Savin 20:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, I strongly disagree. No evidence for that. I'm personaly very interested by supporting pictures of new contributors (if the pic deserves the star IMO, of course).--Jebulon (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jebulon was just an example - I guess the majority of users write competent votes. I appreciate circumstantial votes (like your one here). My answer to Poco was just meant as funny intermezzo. My point was: As far as I know Jebulon from here he would never vote with pro due to the contributor but always with regard to objective and subjective aspects towards the photo. In German (probably not that misunderstanding): Jebulon habe ich hier nur als Beispiel angeführt für einen Benutzer, der wohl als allerletztes wegen eines bestimmten Users mit Pro votieren würde. Ich habe ihn hier kennengelernt als höchst kompetenten aber ebenso kritischen Mitstreiter. Weil Poco vermutet hat, dass du davon ausgehst, dass die Pro-Stimmen vor allem kamen weil Poco das Bild vorgeschlagen hat, habe ich Jebulon als lebendes Gegenbeispiel für diese Annahme angegeben. Mein Kommentar richtete sich keinesfalls gegen dein Votum, das hier sehr ausführlich und sachlich war. Es war nur ein Spaß um die Stimmung ein wenig aufzulockern - das Leben ist doch nicht so ernst! --Tuxyso (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, please do not involve me and what you assume to be my way to vote (I've no way to vote). I'm only a contributor here, and I'm sure i'm often "wrong" in my opinions (like us all...). But frankly I don't care about the author of the picture, I support or decline, even for bad reasons probably. Here, I support. Something works with me. Maybe the red flags, I like this touch of color.--Jebulon (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question You used the EF17-40mm f/4L USM lens, why 32mm and not a wider angle? , the fountain is not the main subject but is undoubtedly a part important of the composition and it is cropped on the right, why? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the picture was actually wider as you can see here, but I decided to crop it a bit tight due to the disturbing elements. I have just uploaded a new version with a more generous crop in the right after doing some editing work. Poc o² 19:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander, Diego; The obligation for the nominateurs to vote in all the oldest active nominations would solve quite ambiguity. But would be very hard to set up. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wiki, you cannot enforce this kind of things. There is actually no problem here that shall be fixed, if any we all should presume good faith. I have never given supporting or opposing votes if I was not convinced about that independently of the author or nominator. I will go one step further, in two cases I even had the impression that 2 users were voting pretty often in favour of my nominations and I wanted to know why that. The answer was convincing in both cases and had nothing to do with sympathy or friendship, it looks like there are photographers here who have similar preferences to what they believe is an FP and, on the other side, others go in a completely different direction. I am also sometimes really surprised about the result of some nominations. We have to accept it. Regarding this picture, I don't think this spot and this building is nothing special after being there, but each one on its own should make up his/her mind about that. Poc o² 20:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose New crop always tight for a FP IMO --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light could be better and crop too tight for me (per Christian), sorry. --Ivar (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eristalinus quinquestriatus 02840.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2013 at 16:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Eristalinus quinquestriatus Created by Vengolis - uploaded by Vengolis - nominated by me -- J e e 16:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 16:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Los colores son muy fuertes, por lo que no se puede apreciar con clareza la imagen. Le ito xx 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leitoxx, no he entendido tu comentario (por lo que me imagino que los compañeros que no hablan español, tampoco). ¿Dónde echas de menos nitidez?. Tampoco aprecio un exceso de saturación, y eso que mi monitor está calibrado. Poc o² 17:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poco a poco, al lado de el insecto, especificando (hojas), enfoca una imagen tanto borrosa, lo cual hace divisar con más detalle a lo no tanto visible que al mismo objetivo, que en este caso sería el insecto. Espero haber sido claro Le ito xx 20:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support St1995 22:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info I reduced noise on the backround, please revert, if it's not better. --Ivar (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not a macro expert but my impression is that this one is very good. You balanced the flash light and ambient light very well thus the photo looks very naturally lightened. Question What lighting technique did you use? --Tuxyso (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A photo I just found while browsing through Category:Nature of Kerala. Pinging Vengolis for response. :) J e e 08:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've overseen that this is not your photo, sorry. Nonetheless light and colors are managed very well here. It would be intersting to get some information about the shooting technique. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Great detail and nice subject, does this guy have such a big eyes? :) but the crop / background are a bit distracting Poc o² 12:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably busy with her dinner; crushing pollen. :) J e e 13:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few hoverflies with mouth parts adapted to crunch polen grains Jee (e.g. Episyrphus balteatus), but I have doubts that this is the case. Notice the spongy pad used for mopping up fluids, like the house fly. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alves for this little, precious info. I'm just a layman trying to learn little things. Always appreciated. J e e 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. Halavar (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 20:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ponta de São Lourenço north north east.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2013 at 12:47:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Ponta de São Lourenço Madeira, Portugal. c/u/n by  Richard  [®]  12:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --  Richard  [®]  12:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Only the definition in the shadow areas isn't perfect. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 13:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow!. Very nice, it's beautiful! Le ito xx 14:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice composition but too hazy. Would support if corrected. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to change it because it should be as realistic as possible. Why bending the reality for a support vote?  Richard  [®]  18:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good Richard, but colors seem oversaturated -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. Nixón (wop!) 02:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice compositon, high resolution but imho the light is not optimal. The front rock (over 50% of the complete rock) is fully in shadow, light is only visible on the upper area over the front rock. I could imagine the light had beed better short before sunset. Otherwise an optimal shot is imho only possible in the summer when the sun gets further around the rock. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite season or time of day, the southeastern part of the edge of the cliff will not be fully exposed to direct sunlight. As you had mentioned previously, we have the choice of either exposing the frontal side of the cliff "to direct sunlight" or "hold out until we get a streak of sunlight". I personally find highlighting the foremost part of the cliff the most attractive, but that is up to everyones personal taste. Since i kept waiting for more diffused sunlight, the part which is not exposed to the sun is not entirely hidden in the shade. Therefore geological characteristics of the rock are still very much visible. In conclusion i find it rather positive, that you are considering these aspects, however i do have to say, that not all things can be managed theoretically by software tools. As a personal challenge i would go a step further in suggesting you search online for a better picture shot from the same angle. Maybe even one that already has been used commercially. I would like to review this with you. Regards.  Richard  [®]  12:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good composition. --Laitche (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 22:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support !WOW! Very NICE! Congratulations! ArionEstar (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic view! Halavar (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Martin Kraft (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if there's still room to jump on board... Wow.--Godot13 (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please remove dustspot. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support good enough to become a FP --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the composition is not good: too much empty space at left, and not enough space at right. A very slight rotation should have been better, not enough to oppose, but prevents from support.--Jebulon (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /ArionEstar (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:High-dynamic-range imaging (HDRI or HDR).JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2014 at 04:31:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by User:AntanO -- Anton ^{·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠·} 04:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anton ^{·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠·} 04:31, 24 December 2013 (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: Quality isn't OK for FP: strong CA, unsharp, posterized. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2013 (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:Sinemorec - beach near Veleka river.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2014 at 14:17:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment big wow to me for this view of a very nice place (the sea is very good, for instance !). However, at full size, it looks a bit oversharpened (see the thin white line between the sky and the trees), and the cropped mobile toilets in the left corner below are unfortunate (and I have cloned out the cars, but that is matter of taste)--Jebulon (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I croped this toilets --Pudelek (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition and the colors look too washed out, probably due to some overexposure (yes, maybe they looked way at the place). Also agree with Jebulon regarding the sharpening. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely composition, but agree with above on oversharpening. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kataveski hiiekadakas.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2013 at 23:40:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks wow. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Saffron Blaze, cannot recognize anything special in this picture and sharpness is not spectacular either, sorry Poc o² 22:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gecko-I.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2013 at 17:32:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Araujojoan96 - uploaded by Araujojoan96 - nominated by Araujojoan96 -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2013 (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: unsharp, oversaturated, wrong colors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2013 (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:Impatiens parviflora - väikeseõiene lemmalts Keila.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2013 at 20:46:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Iifar - nominated Kruusamägi (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info I couldn't get better dof because of light wind. --Ivar (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It breaks me the heart to have to vote against, but the front of the flower is blurred -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing is sharp or detailed, as required in a macro shot. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Most important part is in focus, but that doesn't seem to be enough. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Earth Waves at Cassini.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2013 at 14:55:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech St1995 14:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 14:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question The original description page says "The images came via Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Instagram, Google+ and email." That doesn't sound like there has been an individual release into the public domain of each image. Without clarifying this issue, I'd eventually nominate it for deletion. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination St1995 11:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flowers July 2013-9.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2013 at 22:49:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Unusual composition of flower, buds and leaves of a cultivar Pot Marigold. Notice the hairy sepals and stem of the bud. Taken in the Botanical Garden of Helsinki, Finland. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 22:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality and nice detail but distracting background and I miss a special touch Poc o² 12:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco, not remarkable enough for FP IMO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carisbrooke Castle 2011, 5.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2013 at 18:22:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nilfanion - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Excellent shot. Unfortunately, too people distracting the composition. I recommend using a clooning tool and raising this as another version. Sorry --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the tourists add an important aspect in the depiction of the place. Tomer T (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I like it with the people as well as the composition and the painting-like colors (I suppose it is a HDR?). A pity that i,age quality is not the best. I will wait for other opinions. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it's an HDR, the sky have been a bit overexposed and the quality is a bit small for me too. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomer T or Nilfanion: I like this image very much and maybe there is a way to correct the unfortunate sky. A smart partial cloning of the overexposed clouds might solve the problem. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sky isn't overexposed in original photos, but got blown in the stitching process. Due to commitments here, I don't have time to attempt a fix on the FPC timescale, but can send on the originals if someone else wants to have a go (by email?).--Nilfanion (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like also the "painting-like colours" but I would call it "real life colours". It is not HDR because otherwise moving people would be blurred. I must say is possible to overexpose also with HDR. But in my opinion the exposure is well managed, shadow areas are sufficiently lighted with the cost of possible light overexposure of the clouds, witch I even can't determine without seeing the histogram, but it must be true if the senior users have mentioned it. My main point is that it is possible to achieve "painting-like colors" without HDR if you know how to use your camera. Well done.--Urmas Haljaste (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a very interesting composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposure. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky has wrong colours St1995 11:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Argiope July 2012-3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2013 at 19:26:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A female Banded Garden Spider in its web, ventral view. Notice the spineret and the zig-zag stabilimentum. No, I'm not yet back to "bugs and critters" but this older photo maybe deserves the start. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this picture, I would have liked to see more depth of field to observe the detail of the legs. I would also observe a photograph over the spider. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment crop too wide IMO, I suggest a rectangle diagonals of which would be legs (see notes) -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- You are right, thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 22:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:De Maria kerk in Wierum 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2013 at 17:56:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Uberprutser - nominated by Ivar (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good choice, Ivar. One understand why this country in named "the Netherlands".--Jebulon (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Yes, composition and motive is nice, quality is good. But I do not like contra-light shots for buildings. The complete building is in shadow. The sunset is nice OK, but sunset + sided light from the left had been much more interesting. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convinced this lighting choice offers wow. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Saffron Blaze. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is very interesting, the composition is great. Light isn't perfect, but I don't dislike it either. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice play of diagonals, water, horizon, crosses, church placed in one third, good quality, lighting not a problem IMO at all Poc o² 13:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ivar, Uberprutser and others: I've created an alternative version File:De Maria kerk in Wierum 3 edited.jpg with a brighter church. What do you think about it, probably about an alternative nomination? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can nominate it as alternative. --Ivar (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have currently two nominations run :) --Tuxyso (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support An alternative version with a brighter building. Original by Uberprutser, minor local edits by Tuxyso. @Admins: If it is nok OK, please remove this nomination. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ivar, I also edited this image and uploaded onTuxyso's version, please revert if it's not a good idea --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's OK. The difference is that you made global adjustments and I made local adjustments on the church. A matter of personal taste, probably your one is slightly better thus I would suggest to keep it as alternative and also keep my support for the alternative version. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is better than other version. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 21:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the halo around the bell tower is disturbing imo --2.40.89.74 20:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support too.--Jebulon (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this version, IMO it's a very good image. Halavar (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've got no problem with alternative versions but I do think that the brighter version doesn't represent the lighting condition at the time of the photograph correctly. It was after all evening time with the sun about to set and massive clouds overhead. --Uberprutser (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support My eyes would have adjusted instantly and likely perceived this version as being closer to reality. Nice edit. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 16:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light ajust well done --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:De Maria kerk in Wierum 3 edited.jpg

File:Joschua Tree National Park Rock formation near Barker Dam 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2013 at 14:56:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Rock formation on the Barker Dam Natural Trail at Joshua Tree National Park
all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok for me -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice wide-angle shot. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok for me--Llorenzi (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by .InfiniteHiveMind. (talk • contribs)
Support Le ito xx 14:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and 10. Poc o² 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Skodjebruene.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2013 at 17:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

InfoW:Skodje Bridge created by Trine dahl - uploaded by Trine dahl - nominated by Jarvin -- Jarle Vines (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jarle Vines (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong chromatic aberration, Noise, Need sharpenning, cut top right, Overprocessed. I am sorry --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morten Haugen (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Far from expected standard: very strong chromatic aberration (visible even in thumb size), perspective problems, strong noise (luminosity and chromatic), lack of sharpness, perspective problems, poor crop --Poc o² 18:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose look extremely unnatural (HDR), per Wilfredo --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, strong CA ... not good enough for an FP-image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with the others on image quality and over-processing. However, it has to be said the view is excellent and the composition nearly good enough -- the top-right isn't quite all there. -- Colin (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Colin: Technical aspects aside, the view is amazing! Unfortunately, that alone is not enough for a featured picture. --El Grafo (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that there is potential here, but unfortunately not with this realisation Poc o² 20:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco a poco and other opposers St1995 22:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad CA. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per poco Le ito xx 14:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bighorn, Grand Canyon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2013 at 23:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Marcin Wichary from San Francisco, U.S.A. - uploaded by FlickreviewR - nominated by Yathin_sk -- ~y (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~y (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support No animal was forced to pose here. :). There any apparent sense that an animal is meditating?. It's so strange when animals act like humans. Nice shoot --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose It's a nice shot with wow potential. But for an FP the light is imho too unfortunate. Goat and canyon are in shadow. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I want to see more at right --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support - in favor of Wilfredo's suggestion to crop --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Le ito xx 20:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose problems with sky St1995 22:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Tuxyso. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Don't jump, you have every reason to live..." I mean it's nice and somehow funny, but also too dark.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose I actually like the fact that the canon is rather dark very much. It produces a very prominent difference between foreground and background, up here and down there. A sharp boundary between life and death: One step further and you're done. Unfortunately, most parts of the goat being that dark doesn't support this theme. --El Grafo (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Child working in Maracaibo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2013 at 23:40:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Adults, elderly and children alike work in a country in crisis as Venezuela. All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image, excellent DOF. ArionEstar (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good as it is. But maybe a square would work even better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am distracted by the background and not convinced this requires black and white. Too much foreground given the perspective and subject as mentioned by Martin. Saffron Blaze (talk)
Oppose Sorry but the photo looks too staged imo. He's not working, he stares into the camera. I think you should have spent more time with him and waited until he stopped thinking about you taking pictures of him. As street photo or documentary photos of child labor, I am not convinced. And it is not a very strong portrait either (I agree with Saffron Blaze).--ArildV (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the DOF is chosen badly because it creates a very distracting background as mentioned above . --Florian Fuchs (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nurul Iman mosque.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2013 at 03:58:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by myself -- SpartacksCompatriot (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SpartacksCompatriot (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective correction needed, otherwise good -- [Tycho] (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 50 edits required. --A.Savin 22:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective correction needed. Colours seem overdone. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky has wrong colours St1995 12:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:TU Bibl 01 DSC1099w.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2013 at 12:44:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by P e z i -- P e z i (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P e z i (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! I am surprised with the photos of FIC! ArionEstar (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both the subject who I do not like (I find it very aesthetically ugly, just harmonious, but they are personal opinions) I do not like the prospect, I find the image heavy with a nasty cut. I'm sorry but it's not FP for me--Pava (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, eyecatching, good composition. I'd have like to see more of the building on the right, but anyhow FP to me Poco² 13:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Footprint of the building is nearly square, so there is not much more to the right as can be seen on this pic. And just to have more of the tree wouldn't provide more information about the building. --P e z i (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Le ito xx 14:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 14:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Св. Никола.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2013 at 12:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Petkovskiot - uploaded by Petkovskiot - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perspective distortion, unnatural colors --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no perspective distortion as the church is drowned and slanted downwards on its right side. You can also refer to the sea level which is perfectly balanced.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ideally, perspective distortion doesn't affect horizontals along the camera rotation axis. The poles on the right and the background houses on the left are clearly leaning inwards. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to much sky, oversaturated, CA. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous opposers. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasons above St1995 12:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 14:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basílica Nuestra Señora del Rosario de Chiquinquirá (Exterior 2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2013 at 16:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Beria Lima R. -- Béria Lima ^msg 16:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Béria Lima ^msg 16:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Composition and details are excellent, but not happy with the lighting and perhaps a bit over processed to regain detail in shadow areas and protect highlights. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral lighting is normal, but trees are oversaturated imho St1995 22:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bottom crop is unfortunate and it needs a perspective correction (both sides) Poc o² 13:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor lighting and weak composition. I would probably go to a portrait format to avoid those buildings at right. A bit overprocessed, I believe. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corneilhan, Hérault 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2013 at 17:10:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light and interesting motive. I also like this nearly centered composition which draws the attention on the church. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes.--Jebulon (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support First I thought that the composition was too centered, but after taking a second glance I'd say Tuxyso is right. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image of a very nice village. Doesn't affect quality of the image or my vote: Just curious what this is (note)? Smoke? --P e z i (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is smoke of a small local fire -- Christian Ferrer 05:53, 19, December 2013 (UTC)

Support --Ivar (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for this same old reason (not mine but that perfectly embodies what i think): <<Ok, there is decent light and there is good use of diagonals. But what's special about the subject ? The scene looks commonplace and I am unable to find much "wow" >> --Pava (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 22:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Pro: for the diagonals, ligthing and composition; Con: subject not really eyecatching Poc o² 13:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Basílica de Nuestra Señora, Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 06.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2014 at 14:42:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Basilica of Our Lady of The Immaculate Conception (short Saigon Notre-Dame Cathedral Basilica), finished in 1880 by French colonists, is a catholic temple in the city of Ho Chi Minh City (former Saigon), Vietnam. All by me, Poc o² 14:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 14:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wrong perspective correction (towers seem to lean against right direction, the spire isn't sharp, over all the image impression is boring and not outstanding, good QI, far away from FP --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New version with rework of the perspective correction Poc o² 13:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good motif and composition, but bad timing. The light is dull and spreads a bleak atmosphere. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 10:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Penélope Cruz TIFF 2012.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2013 at 20:21:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tabercil - uploaded by MyCanon - nominated by Tabercil -- Tabercil (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tabercil (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the text of the source link say the actor's name but it actually links to the uploader's Flickr profile? I find that a bit deceptive. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... probably it's the uploader's attempt to provide context. The link given in the picture does go to the image at Flickr, but the file name there is generic (IMG-57367.jpg). And I'm a little confused - I'm the person who took the picture. If anything it'd be my profile at Flickr that comes up, not MyCanon... Tabercil (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the correct source link would say your user name on Flickr not Ms Cruz. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Harsh flash. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As King of Hearts; plus noisy and bad POF. --P e z i (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, "POF"? I'm listening to the feedback on the shot and I'm curious as to what the various flaws are to the shot as perceived by the reviewers. I usually don't do much post-processing of shots prior to posting, but I still have the RAW file for this shot and I'd be willing to try and tackle it further within Photoshop to bring it up to snuff. Tabercil (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Point of Focus is on her shoulder and not on her eyes IMO. --P e z i (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what POF is either but I find the pose unflattering. Look at her neck. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but curiously, her neck was not the part of her body who catched my attention immediately...--Jebulon (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, she has a lovely smile. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corneilhan, Hérault 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2013 at 17:10:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light and interesting motive. I also like this nearly centered composition which draws the attention on the church. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes.--Jebulon (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support First I thought that the composition was too centered, but after taking a second glance I'd say Tuxyso is right. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image of a very nice village. Doesn't affect quality of the image or my vote: Just curious what this is (note)? Smoke? --P e z i (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is smoke of a small local fire -- Christian Ferrer 05:53, 19, December 2013 (UTC)

Support --Ivar (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for this same old reason (not mine but that perfectly embodies what i think): <<Ok, there is decent light and there is good use of diagonals. But what's special about the subject ? The scene looks commonplace and I am unable to find much "wow" >> --Pava (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 22:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Pro: for the diagonals, ligthing and composition; Con: subject not really eyecatching Poc o² 13:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Pakri vana tuletorni varemed.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2013 at 17:24:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info ruins of Pakri old lighthouse. Still standing today... All by Ivar (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Wrong focus (stones in the bottom), unfortunate cut in the bottom, not appealing composition Poc o² 13:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I am feeling the same as Poco. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Agree with Poco a Poco concerning the composition. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Entry-Miami.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2014 at 02:51:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

One of the entries to the coast in Ocean Drive (South Beach, Miami, Florida).

Info created by Araujojoan96 - uploaded by Araujojoan96 - nominated by Araujojoan96 -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea, but composition is too centered; maybe have less sky and more foreground. Also colors seem to be a bit off. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I really wanted some class of geometry and linear perspective here. And, in that cases, I always look for the center... But something that I don't understand about your words (the english isn't my native language) is: “color seem to be a bit off”. --Araujojoan96 (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMO, he wanted to say the colors are like washed out, the image is a bit blurred due to the small Dof --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for explain me...--Araujojoan96 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 17:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hereford Cathedral 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2013 at 02:16:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Seems a bit soft. Perhaps large file size or lack of sharpening? Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have increased the contrast and have sharpend the image a bit more Mdbeckwith
Support -- It's a bit soft and I like it!--Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bud cut, and the light... something has been ruined by this light. ok I get it: the image is moved --Pava (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs some sharpening, a bit perspective correction, and decent categorization. I'm willing to support if it's all solved. --A.Savin 11:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tried to fix the perspective issue as best as I could. I have also increased the sharpness and contrast to give it the image a bit more punch Mdbeckwith
  - CommentI see no perspective issues here.--Urmas Haljaste (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment If you look to the prior version on the far left column it isn't perfectly vertical and is slightly at an angle. In the new version I have made it as vertical as I possibly can. Mdbeckwith
Oppose I am a big fan of HDR technique but in the case here the micro-contrast / detail-enhancing is imho overdone. Have you tried different HDR techniques e.g. only fusion with tonemapping in LR? --Tuxyso (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overtreatment. Good HDR technique is when you do not see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archaeodontosaurus (talk • contribs) --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed HDR, per Archaeodontosaurus HDR is a very handy set of techniques that are useful but here it's just too much. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much HDR. -- [Tycho] (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 50 edits required. --A.Savin 22:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above St1995 11:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 17:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teltowkanal 05 Griebnitzsee Blick auf Schlosspark Glienicke.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2013 at 11:28:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by A.Savin
Support --A.Savin 11:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful photo, very pleasant --Christian Ferrer 12:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 22:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not an outstanding motive, also the hoarding (Bauzaun) is a bit disturbing but imho the light, composition and quality reaches the FP bar - a pleasant photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose From quality point of view I have to say that this is a super QI, but the composition is not appealing (centered, nothing drawing attention, no tension) and the subject is to me nothing spectacular Poc o² 12:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition. Quality is good, but there is no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Composition would be even better if moved a little bit more to the left, but it's fine as is. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 17:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Torre di Vendicari.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2013 at 11:03:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Leandro's World Tour - uploaded by Mikystar - nominated by Pava -- Pava (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me nice shot, the subject is well managed and the locations (Vendicari Nature Reserve - Sicily, Italy) are great. The big tree is well cut, the small sapling instead has a bad cut, but it is marginal. Good colors: are natural.-- Pava (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment slightly tilted clockwise; dust spot (see notice) --P e z i (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fatto remove dust, thank you. --Pava (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unfortunate light, complete building is in shadow. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tree on the right, cropping the tree out wouldn't solve it.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mikystar (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request Can you please add geocoding, if possible ? --[Tycho] (talk) 07:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnecessarily shot in mid-day light and backlit. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special St1995 16:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 17:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from Park inn Berlin November 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2013 at 12:14:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Berlin (primary Berlin-Mitte) seen from hotel Park inn at Alexanderplatz. Created, uploaded and and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 22:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak ~~Oppose~~ Good afternoon / evening light (is the time correct?) and sky but I am not fully convinced. 1. the cropped rails at the front left are unfortunate 2. I am missings something eye-catching, all buildings are very flat, probably a more dense perspective (with a tele-lens) had been a better choice here. Especially the right half of the photo is from a photographic standpoint relatively boring 3. too much sky for my personal taste --Tuxyso (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Time is correct (sunset was 15:59, November 26)
- The point of the photo is a high resolution images showing a huge part of Berlin-Mitte (a tele-lens had shown a much smaller part) in a very beautiful light. Some FP candidates have higher WOW but a little less EV, others have higher EV but a little less WOW (but still wow). My personal opinion is that this kind of very detailed city landscape has a high wow factor. Regards--ArildV (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely have very detailed city landscapes a wow potential. But if this had been your primary matter I had made use of panorama / stitching technique - no big deal with this motive. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slight ccw tilt Poco² 12:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks.--ArildV (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Poc o² 18:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arild, I don't like the almost centered horizon, I feel it doesn't work here, I think the rule of thirds might help in this case (by cropping a part of the sky). What do you think? There's also some slight CA which could be removed (I added two notes, remove them later). --Kadellar (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done thank you. Much better now imo, CA also removed (sorry I forget to do it before I uploaded it).--ArildV (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Thanks for reworking. --Kadellar (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support I've changed my vote. With the new crop the photo is much better because the houses (although not very eye-catching and high) became more prominent. The evening light creates an intersting mood over the city. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Apart from some warm lighting and a road that leads the eye towards the middle, this photo IMO has nothing going for it.Fotoriety (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of composition, structure or prominent objects of interest. It's a very good QI imo. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fully agree with Julian Herzog -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 17:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Argynnis adippe 1 Richard Bartz.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 16:22:19

Info Not parallel. (Original nomination)
Delist -- (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arctic Kangaroo should learn first of all to write reasonable statements for deselection. Can't see why this image should be delisted as FP. This removal wasn`t even embedded in the main page (I´ve made this up [3]). I advise Arctic Kangaroo to stop this nonsense, immediately! --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, --A.Savin 20:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep  Richard  [®]  20:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jo ischt deam lanweilig oder was? --Böhringer (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~FPX|no reason for delist available/visible. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)~~ FPX now unnecessary. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danaus plexippus (7).jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 16:20:05

Info Not parallel (Original nomination)
Delist -- (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good rationale for delisting. Pleclown (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not parallel :) --Tuxyso (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- --Hockei (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a joke :) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- but it's not April Fools' Day today. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep  Richard  [®]  20:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --P e z i (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Cayambe (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butterfly 053.JPG (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 16:17:37

Info Not parallel. (Original nomination)
Delist -- (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good rationale for delisting. Pleclown (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not parallel :) --Tuxyso (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be a orthoptic problem? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep  Richard  [®]  20:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --P e z i (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Cayambe (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anthocharis-cardamines.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 16:14:42

Info Not parallel, and not exactly a "proper" shot. Focuses on neither the upperside nor underside of butterfly. (Original nomination)
Delist -- (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good rationale for delisting. Pleclown (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not parallel :) --Tuxyso (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---- Hockei (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of us have too much to drink for Christmas. I myself see butterflies everywhere ...
Keep  Richard  [®]  20:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Cayambe (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012.08.10.-5-Mannheim Vogelstang-Kleiner Kohl-Weißling-Paarung-crop.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 16:06:11

Info Not parallel. (Original nomination)
Delist -- (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not parallel.? Not understandable what you want to say. --Hockei (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Example of a parallel shot - level with the butterfly, can see the sides/top of the butterfly completely (unless the wings half-opened): File:Malachitfalter, Bambuspage, Siproeta stelenes 3.JPG. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've said to the butterfly: "Close your wing!" But it haven't done what I had wanted from it. --- What you say is no reason for me. --Hockei (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No good rationale for delisting. Pleclown (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not parallel :) --Tuxyso (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This time it's true. They are not parallel. But I think it does not bother. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep  Richard  [®]  20:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Cayambe (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toucan at the Santa Barbara Zoo.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 20:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Warby, uploaded/nominated by me St1995 20:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 20:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise on the black feathers is quite noticeable, and overall looks a bit washed out. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cf. King --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Slightly underexposed, lacking sharpness. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination St1995 10:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Junonia coenia at the Butterflies and Blooms exhibit at the Conservatory of Flowers.jpg

File:Red pencil urchin - Papahānaumokuākea.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2013 at 17:05:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region's - uploaded by Pete Tillman - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as uploader -- striking image. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pete Tillman. Tomer T (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pink corals are overexposed. --Kikos (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks quality. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral We regularly accept underwater photos of this quality, but unfortunately the overexposure is a problem. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree, the picture is FP if the significant overexposed areas are fixed, until then I must oppose. Poc o² 22:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is a fix possible, do you think? Does anyone here know someone who might take it on? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this is brightened and the original can be found, this is hardly correctable, sadly. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a RAW file or did you shoot directly in JPEG? Poc o² 16:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you see is what I got from the USFWS image library. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sv. Pantelejmon od Gorno Nerezi.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2014 at 22:48:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Raso mk - uploaded by Raso mk - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky looks artificial (probably darkened a little too heavily) and the photo suffers from a combination of colour noise and compression artifacts. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overdone for my taste, with saturated and unnatural colors. The geometric distortion doesn't help either. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too unnatural colors. Oversaturated St1995 12:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 09:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haltern am See, Skulptur -Der gescheiterte Varus- (Wilfried Koch) -- 2013 -- 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2013 at 15:05:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice illumination and composition, I like the image, but isn't the sculpture a bit blurry? Something must have moved a little during the long exposure, I'm not sure. --Kadellar (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the lighting too harsh. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BTW: The lightning is original. The lamp is in close proximity to the sculpture.--XRay ^talk 07:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it but the shadows on the right and in the foreground are a bit disturbing for a FP, and I think a crop would not help -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Le ito xx 15:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rogue River Oregon USA.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2013 at 18:27:34

Info Really overexposed and unsharp, also seems oversaturated (Original nomination, Previous removal discussion)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Oversharpened, oversaturated and overexposed. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others above. --Cayambe (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Kruusamägi (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist St1995 12:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --P e z i (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Laitche (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Way oversharpened. I'm afraid I'll get cut looking at it in high-res. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist J e e 05:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 10 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Jee 05:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kutelo (Кутело), Pirin.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2013 at 21:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality image, but nothing special => no FP for me St1995 12:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suru Bog.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2013 at 22:15:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Urmas Haljaste - uploaded by Urmas Haljaste - nominated by Urmas Haljaste -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! Amazing pic. --P e z i (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice composition but poor image quality, far from the present FP standards. There is nothing sharp in this picture. The difference to this other present nomination is amazing. I just don't understand. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure but it seems to me that the other picture you are referring to is captured with a medium format camera. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know, but Richard's camera used to be a full frame Canon with less resolution than the Nikon D800.
  - Look at the metadata. It is medium format camera. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question Was this picture upsampled from the previously uploaded one? That would explain the strong blur. Incidentally, the vertical dimension of this image is larger than the width of a D800 photo. No theory of conspiracy here, just a genuine curiosity in understanding why the image is so blurred. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was not upsampled. And the vertical dimension I cannot explain. It happens when the pictures are merged together so I blame Photoshop. It merger them together again and now there are even more pixels. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit overcooked and no wow. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support No wow? Really? And recall that this is 112 MP; if downsampled 50%, this would be tack-sharp and still 28 MP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. --Laitche (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. (thumb is nice) --Kikos (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, when I open an FP at full size I just expect sharpness, it definitely needs a rework Poc o² 22:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I must say that I just love the contradicting opinions. I uploaded a new version, a little sharper but I think I still won't convince my friends who believe in contrast/sharpness/clarity. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, nice at low resolution but at full there is a lack of quality IMO --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I should stay to low resolution then. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 20:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Sharpened and downsampled by Laitche. If the author doesn't like this alternative I would withdraw the nomination. --Laitche (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Thank you. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support good and nice --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also very good. But I do not really understand why downscaling (with information loss) improves an image and makes it more featureable. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because, in this case, the original is an obvious upsample. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A new revolution in digital photography? Downsample an upsampled image and the result is better than original? I don't think so. But loss of information can improve the image. Sharpening is nothing else but loss of information. It is a question of taste. I prefer nature photos not to be so sharp. And I evaluate photos at the screen size. I zoom in to full size to find sensor dust spots. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion, both images are ok :) Kruusamägi (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 20:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Suru Bog 10000px.jpg

File:Vistas desde la iglesia de San Pedro, Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-07, DD 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2013 at 18:51:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View of the Railway Bridge from Saint Peter's church, an iron bridge over the Duagava river in Riga, capital of Latvia. The current bridge of a length of 328m was inaugurated in 1914 and rebuilt after the World Wars. All by me, Poc o² 18:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO it would maybe be a little better with a little more of highlights in the sky however it is not bad like that and I like the compo -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Estoy de acuerdo con el comentario de Christian, algunas zonas del río se observan grises en lugar de blancas. Hubiera sido deseable más nitidez, sin embargo, en MHO, esta imagen no solo debe ser destacada, sino también, nominada a VI. Un abrazo --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Composition and motive is interesting. But for me the light is not good enough for an FP. The sky in general looks seldom appealing in near back light situations (besides sunset). The file description is imho irritating. From the photo I had not concluded that the bridge is the main motive. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is a very good picture but the lighting is far from the FP level, as stated by Tuxyso. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I agree with Tuxyso and Alvesgaspar. Midday backlight (solar noon was back then at 13:30 and you took the shoot at 14:01) was not a good choice. Light conditions would have been much better at evening. --Ivar (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition, it's a kind of zig-zag that leads to the horizon with the bridge in the middle. --Kadellar (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light almost hides the bridge in a low-contrast area. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the picture is okay, for sure QI, but not featureable --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nixón (wop!) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Works of Brasilia[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 16:21:21 (UTC)

Picture 1: A Justiça by Alfredo Ceschiatti. Seated, blindfolded woman with a sword. This signifies fairness and the power to achieve it. This statue is located in front of the headquarters of the Supreme Court of Brazil.
(Original resolution: 1 672 × 2 268 pixels)
Picture 2: Supreme Federal Court of Brazil, Brasília.
(Original resolution: 3 880 × 1 196 pixels)
Picture 3: National Museum Honestino Guimarães, Brasília.
(Original resolution: 4 164 × 1 848 pixels)

Info Set created by User:ArionEstar, picture 1 created by User:Morio, picture 2 and picture 3 by User:Cayambe - uploaded by respective creators - nominated by User:ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The height of the second picture is 1196 pixels, below the required, but it reaches more than 2 megapixels. ArionEstar (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The quality of the first picture (statue) is far from what is required for FP.--ArildV (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Picture 1: Supreme Federal Court of Brazil, Brasília.
(Original resolution: 3 880 × 1 196 pixels)
Picture 2: National Museum Honestino Guimarães, Brasília.
(Original resolution: 4 164 × 1 848 pixels)

Info Set alternate without first image.
Support ArionEstar (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When you have as few as two images, and they aren't extremely related (e.g. illustrations of the two steps in some two-step process), I highly recommend nominating them separately. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I

I withdraw my nomination. ArionEstar (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:C-petra-0869-roof.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2013 at 22:15:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by PereslavlFoto - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Araujojoan96 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing view. I like it. --A.Savin 22:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per A.Savin.--Jebulon (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support due to the missing simmetry, but FP level to me anyhow Poc o² 22:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Redoute du Castellas, Sète, Hérault 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2013 at 06:13:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Araujojoan96 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are at least 10 dust spots in the left top quarter Poc o² 22:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done I don't know if there were dustspots but there was indeed a problem in this part of the sky, anyway thanks. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, Support I like the lighting and the perspective Poc o² 17:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Halavar (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Graffiti distract me St1995 16:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 14:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Margaritas Chinas.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2014 at 13:33:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivan2010 - uploaded by Ivan2010 - nominated by Ivan2010 -- Ivan2010 (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivan2010 (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 14:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Isaac's Cathedral in SPB.jpeg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SloveeniaBled.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:2013-12-25 Kirche St. Petri in Kleinbernsdorf.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brasília Museu Nacional Honestino Guimarães.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St John church at Kaneo, Ohrid (7809249656).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Grand Theatre Blackpool (8367233471).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vitra-Haus5.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File: Paddenstoel Jonkervallei 02.JPG