Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2009

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

File:Natalie close-up in front of the Eiffel Tower.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 20:07:34

•  Info photographed, uploaded, and nominated by Diti — 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment See the bid on eBay. ;) →Diti the penguin — 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support →Diti the penguin — 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose background does not help. Picture does not illustrate the fursuit very well. Plus the design of the fursuit is very likely copyrighted. --Dschwen (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment Yes, I kind of knew that background would not please, but I only had my 70-300mm telephoto lens (a friend of mine got luckier ;). I have a lot of photos which would illustrate the whole fursuit better, but this is a close-up (so we can see, for example, the little holes composing the eyes and allow the fursuiter to see). And for the copyright status, as for the reason File:Anthrocon_2007 Disabled fursuiter in parade.jpg was undeleted, the photo's licensing status is independent of the design of the fursuit (I read big parts of the Copyright Act with GreenReaper (talk · contribs) for figuring it out). →Diti the penguin — 20:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  That surprises me. De minimis certainly won't apply, neither will FOP. The reasons given in the undelete seem a bit fishy. Fursuit is original enough, and the license applying is for the photograph, not for the design what does that mean? The designer will have copyright on the design, just taking a picture will not get around it. The photographer cannot relicense the design of the suit. With your train of thought FOP would not be necessary at all for example. That is just wrong. --Dschwen (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  In general, here's why I think fursuit photographs are fine copyright-wise:

  • Copyright law makes a distinction between designs and works of art. Designs have fewer protections, especially when they form part of a useful article. A fursuit design is precisely what the name suggests - a design embodied in a useful article of apparel.
  • The presence of a proposal for the Design Piracy Prohibition Act suggests apparel is not comprehensively covered by current copyright law.
  • I can't speak for other areas of fashion, but there is a very strong implied license regarding the use of fursuit designs for photography. In almost all cases, these costumes are commissioned for specific owners who have a character in mind, and it is understood by all parties that they are made to be seen, photographed, and reproduced in audiovisual recordings, like a sports mascot. I've published hundreds of photos and there are hundreds like me. No designer has complained, nor would I expect them to.
  • At least one major fursuiting company specifically addresses the right to make copies of the design - they consider it to be held by the owner of the costume (and not by the person rendering the artwork), even though they themselves recognize the need for art and suggest artists for this purpose. Some creators even go to the extent of arranging photoshoots for fursuits which they created.
  • To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, no fursuit designer has submitted or intends to submit their work to the Copyright Office. Submission is required within two years for designs embodied in a useful article. It is also not common for artists to require creators to place a design notice on a fursuit.
  • It's just silly. Without the right to take photographs, you would have no good way to (say) auction the work to others over the Internet, as is typically done. GreenReaper (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately It's just silly is not a compelling legal argument. Furthermore I disgaree about your interpretation of the fur figure as design instead of artwork. What if it had been a Mikey Mouse suit? --Dschwen (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If the suit would have represented the current Mickey Mouse design, I think Commons couldn't have been able to host a photo of it, because Mickey Mouse is a copyrighted character. Yet, licensing of this file is perfectly fine, as I am the photographer. Commons just doesn't accept most of the files which would not be free enough to be used safely. Per GreenReaper (talk · contribs) above, a fursuit differs from a mascot or any other copyrighted character, by the fact that fursuits are meant to be photographed since the beginning because their owners wear them for that reason. Perhaps the Walt Disney Company could sue us for that —and we even don't know, we consider them as derivative works but maybe they accept it—, but a fursuiter couldn't. Nintendo could sue the owner of this Lucario fursuit, but not the photographer. →Diti the penguin — 19:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Nintendo could sue the owner of this Lucario fursuit this is simply not true. It is up to the photographer to make sure he doesn't wrongly relicense copyrighted artwork. I'm assuming the fursuit maker has licensed the design from Nintendo. Otherwise the make could be sued by Nintendo. But I fail to see a scenario where the wearer could be sued (last time I checked bad taste wasn't illegal (not even in france)). --Dschwen (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh, actually, that's because a fursuiter is presumed to be the copyright holder of their suit (and, if the fursuit is commissioned, they implicitly grant rights, so derivative work —a 3D adaptation— can be made). I believe, for almost any case (I didn't say “for any case” though), that fursuiters, copyright holders of their characters, does the same for photography. “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” —Benjamin Franklin (my personal thought). →Diti the penguin — 15:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Wisecracking is not going to help. How about you address the concerns. Who designed the character? (This is not about freedom or security it is about abiding to copyright laws). --Dschwen (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I see on this page that Mixed Candy created the design, which is the company GreenReaper (talk · contribs) mentioned above, the one who specifically grants the right to make copies of the design. →Diti the penguin — 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I like this one! --Aktron (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Somehow it's funny but plush and steel hardly fits together - wanna say the dominating tower in the background is a bit disturbing. The copyright thing should be doublechecked. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose due composition: distracting background. Adambro (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Distracting background. —kallerna™ 12:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Distracting background.--SKvalen (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I think that is a great picture ! --Garfieldairlines (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination As it seems that that kind of background doesn't fall within FP requirements. I'll nominate several photos in the future, but their background are part of the scene and cannot be removed ; while —I knew I should have thought about it!— this photo could have been taken without the Eiffel Tower behind the fursuiter.

For the copyright status, unless you want to delete the whole Category:Fursuits, I believe we could assume that a fursuiter want their fursuit to be photographed. Anyone is warmly encouraged to discuss about it (I'll keep this page in my watchlist). →Diti the penguin — 19:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether these guys want to be photographed is completely irrelevant for the purpose of determining the copyright status. And neither is OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a valid argument. --Dschwen (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe you can explain me why my argument isn't valid, then? Fursuits does somehow have an unique use within the furry fandom (hence, the photos in this category can be taken as a whole), while mascots and cosplay costumes depend on the case. De we really need an OTRS permission for photos of fursuits? If so, please tell me, so I'll send one for every picture in which Natalie appear. I just —personally— think that is nonsense (COM:DM can't apply because each of the seven main fursuits is the subject of the photo), but I can do it. →Diti the penguin — 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. →Diti the penguin — 10:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel photo.png, featured

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2009 at 16:05:36

•  Info created by Dcrjsr - uploaded by Dcrjsr - nominated by Dcrjsr -- Dcrjsr (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This is probably the most aesthetically pleasing of the original hand-drawn ribbon representations of proteins from the early '80s, from which the now-ubiquitous computer-graphics ribbon images of protein 3D structure developed. This 8-stranded barrel protein fold has turned out to be extremely common for enzymes. This image thus has historical as well as scientific value. It is from a scan of a photograph (slide) of the original pastel drawing (by Jane Richardson | me), retouched somewhat to even the background lighting. -- Dcrjsr (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Musia! (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--very fine pastle sketchMadhurantakam
•  Support Thank you so much for uploading this. It's incredibly interesting to see an example of a major biochemical model by the inventor of this means of modelling it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Dcrjsr: you are Jane S Richardsson, then? I would suppose so as you have uploaded it and say it is yours, but why do you refer to yourself in third person in your comment above then? Plrk (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment--may be u can add the g-crystalline proteins sketch as well Jane Madhurantakam
•  Comment Yes, the Dcrjsr account is Dave and me; I wasn't trying to be coy - I don't really know the rhetoric of this medium yet! Indeed, we will try to contribute various other of our images to the Commons as well - but I'm afraid only a few of our other photos of hand drawings have the technical quality and resolution of this one. Dcrjsr (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  Awesome! Plrk (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment After a useful comment by Pstanton on Wikipedia, I've cleaned up a small glitch in the upper-left corner and replaced the image with TriosephosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel.png (the old one TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel.png is still there if anyone wants to compare). Also, thanks to Lycaon for making a clear-background version. Dcrjsr (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support And for scientific interest, is this a possible candidate for Valued Images? - Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support GerardM (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC) important and encyclopaedic
•  Oppose "Note that a 1600 x 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level." ? —kallerna™ 18:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose 1600 x 1200 is quite small, and below the Featured Pictures guidelines. Since this seems to be originally from a drawing, can you re-scan it at a higher resolution? (As high as possible to produce a PNG file less than 12MB.) JalalV (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

 Comment The slide from which this was scanned has rather uneven background lighting, which took a great deal of hand-work to even out for this image and is therefore not a good source for higher resolution. It would be possible, and desirable, to re-photograph the original drawing (which is still in good shape under glass} but that is not feasible in one day, given our packed schedule for tomorrow. Is it possible to extend the comment period on this image, since my newbie ignorance made it visible here only on Jan 17, not Jan 14? Actually, the reason I nominated it, in spite of the 1600x1200 quote, is because drawings are supposed to be done as png's, and as a png it is 3.1Mb. I do agree that since it's possible to get higher resolution, I should definitely do that. However, those few extra days would be appreciated, in order to follow this last-minute suggestion that would improve what's publicly available here. Dcrjsr (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose As other opposers. If, BTW, you are certain that you will be able to provide us with a higher resolution (as good quality) scan, then you might consider withdrawing this one an nominating the new one when it is ready. Lycaon (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

result (for original version): 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support now it looks great! --SvonHalenbach (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC) too late --D-Kuru (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I decided to change my vote, as the timing of this nomination seems unclear. However, please, please upload the higher quality (close to 12MB) version! I'm supporting because I think the "delist and replace" option is better than relisting this picture all over again, but I am trusting that the higher res version will be available soon... --JalalV (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC) too late --D-Kuru (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Replaced image with the requested high-resolution re-scan of the original drawing; somewhat truer color balance. Included some of the surrounding mat, to emphasize that it is a physical drawing. Dcrjsr (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks! Personally, I would crop-out the mat, especially as the original drawing that was voted on did not have it, and frames are looked down upon on at FP. --JalalV (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment OK, here it is now without the mat. Dcrjsr (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Ichneumonidae mating.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2009 at 12:43:36

•  Info Two Ichneumonidae flies mating. The flies are very small and maintaining a good DOF at this high level of maginification is very difficult. Good quality and lighting of a very rarely seen and photographed incident (according to the one who helped identify the subject). Created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 12:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Muhammad 12:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very interesting shot.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oh, dear! Flashing like hell :-)) There is 2 much overexposure (wings, thorax, abdomen) . Otherwise nice. --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This picture would not have been possible without flash as a fast shutter speed was required since the mating wasps were not immobile --Muhammad 18:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I disagree - maybe not possible for you :-)) 1/250 with flashlight Macro isn't that difficult nor magic and a photographer has to abide by the rules as in every genre. I have nothing against flashlight in general but an overexposure with many areas of total white (255,255,255) isn't acceptable and doesn't knock me off my socks, nowadays . Friendly advice: Raise the distance (more DOF) and use a wider aperture to gain a faster shutter speed and crop -or- use softer flashlight techniques -or- retouche your pictures before nominating. --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
      • By raising the distance do you mean move back from the subject and not shoot at 1:1? By re-touching, would I be able to solve the overexposure on the wings? (BTW, friendly advice much appreciated :-)) --Muhammad 20:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
        • You should try this :-)) Take a ruler and place it in a 45 degree position, focus a number (the number should be rotated 90 degrees clockwise when setting up corectly) and make some pictures while raising the distance, start with 1:1 and go up to 50cm. You will see that DOF will enlarge and with the ruler you can meassure that effect very exactly. This experiment in mind will help you in finding good strategies in the future. Regarding retouching - I'am shure that you can remove the selective overexposure with ease as the picture isn't overexposed at all. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks ;-) --Muhammad 18:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Kjetil_r 19:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Claus (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Richard Bartz. —kallerna™ 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Avjoska (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I'm in doubt. On the one hand, Richard is right about the overexposed areas. On the other hand, it's an extraordinary picture with many qualities too. So, finally, I prefer to support... -- MJJR (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Lycaon (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

 result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre BW 1.JPG not featured

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 14:52:07

•  Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition is kinda odd. —kallerna™ 15:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Image buildup is certainly not balanced - strange angles --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Cycad cone.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 17:49:57

•  Info A rare image of details of a cone of an endangered species of cycad. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Muhammad 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment -- I can appreciate that the image is rare, but it should be possible to take another picture when lighting is more benefitial (early morning, for example)? Anrie (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This picture was taken around 10 in the morning. What do you think is wrong with the lighting? Thanks for your comments. Muhammad 14:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks extremely flat, with little depth. Partly that may be the lighting, and partly perhaps because the image is very overexposed in the red channel (check the histogram). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose because the composition could/should be much better. I don't like the light/colors too much, either. --Siebengang (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:The camel corps at Beersheba2.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 19:32:00

•  Info created by American Colony Jerusalem - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:The camel corps at Beersheba.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support From what I see, the restoration is good. →Diti the penguin — 20:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Anrie (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- GerardM (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good EV --Muhammad 05:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Definitely interesting subject, but composition and aesthetics are weak, contrast is low. Crapload (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Karel (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like the fact that you can actually see the expressions on their faces. -- Belasd (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I must agree with Crapload. —kallerna™ 19:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Nice work. --Dschwen (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great historic photo! Vanjagenije (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not special enough. Lycaon (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Twdragon (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Cub polar bear is nursing 2.OGG, not featured

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 22:07:55

•  Info The video was taken in w:Churchill, Manitoba
•  Info created by mbz1 -edited and uploaded by Dhatfield - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Aaaaw! =3 →Diti the penguin — 23:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Camera shake. Adambro (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Adambro, I thought that you'll be glad to find out that instead of disrupting Commons, I at last started doing something useful. I have hoped you will support my efforts  :) Just kidding. Thank you the the interest in my video and for your vote.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• More  Info May I please tell you a little bit more about taking of the video? I had my film Canon SLR in one hand and my video camera in other. It was bitterly cold, and the tundra buggy the video was taken from was shaking. Of course I do realize that only the end result matters.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• The camera shake is not that bad, and it could be removed entirely with a bit of post-processing. I believe you can do that with ALE (Anti Lamenessing Engine, http://auricle.dyndns.org/ALE/ ). --Dschwen (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for watching the video and for the kind comment, Daniel. I'm ashamed of myself, but I have to ad admit that I have not a slightest idea how to download this video back to my computer. So, I guess I've no choice except letting it go as it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The postprocessing should be performed on the original video data. You don't have that anymore? --Dschwen (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Then it is probabably impossible because the video was edited by user:Dhatfield and he/she did a great job with my original. If I'm to edit my original now, it will look much worse than the nominated one. Thank you for taking your time to comment, Daniel.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I agree, he did do a pretty good job. Did he have the original material though. or did he work with the version you uploaded. Anyhow this is probably a moot point, as I just saw in the linked nomination, that this video was already voted on and supported. Why renoninate? --Dschwen (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He worked with the version I uploaded as I recal, but I am not positive. This video was supported on English Wikipedia. I believed it is OK to nominate it on Commons. I'm sorry, if I've done something wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, pardon me. I didn't notice the link went over to en. --Dschwen (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Austrian military hospital WWIb.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 04:10:38

•  Info created by American Colony Jerusalem - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Austrian military hospital WWI.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Anrie (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Karel (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:The Spit Bruny Island.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 01 Feb 2009 at 17:16:38

•  Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by norro 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The photograph shows an uncommon piece of landscape, has good technical quality and is aesthetically pleasing. --norro 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Enough wow for me, and nice illustration of such landscape feature. -- Klaus with K (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Decent --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• reluctant  Oppose. Size through downsampling forces me to oppose. Lycaon (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral An impressive image, but the resolution is very small and even at this resolution the technicalities are only so so. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality, wow, and more than 2mp despite the downsample. --Muhammad 05:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Avjoska (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Plrk (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's awesome, but: the handrail is almost white and the size is too small. —kallerna™ 13:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Stop complaining about downsampling and be glad that the image is on Commons. This is a repository for free images, not a crusade for the five freedoms. It is a privilege for Commons to receive the file in a free format, not a right to receive it in the highest quality. Do not bite the hand that feeds you. This image has a great composition, cool subject matter... who cares bout the downsampling, it could even have been cropped would we not know better. Freedom to share (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment This is what is called an isthmus, or isthme in French. This one was discovered during the Baudin expedition to Australia and then called isthme Saint-Aignant according to François Péron, Voyage de découvertes aux terres australes, p. 145. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Curnen (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Size. It is really near the lower limit, without mitigating circumstances for the small size. --JalalV (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Mitigating reasons are required when the picture is less than 2mp. Muhammad 04:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose size Gnangarra 10:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support As Freedom to Share. --Karel (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing special. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Ala z ^talk 22:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Crapload (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support bit noisy, but good composition - Man On Mission (talk)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice, with wow effect--Jagro (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 19 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. D-Kuru (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Larus pacificus Bruny Island.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 17:43:22

•  Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 17:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Muhammad 17:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, image is below size limit and overly cropped Lycaon (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Still an impressive bird and a very good quality shot, shame about the unwillingness to submit large sized images. Lycaon (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support For me, a 4 KB difference (1,169 × 1,707 = 1,995,483) from the minimal image size requirement should not lead to a {{FPX}}. This is a technically awesome photo. →Diti the penguin — 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Well, awesome is a very elastic term :-)) It's good but I dont like the tight crop on the left side --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but there is no technical reason why this image should be below the 2Mpx limit. The small image size is purely the decision of the uploader, and FPC voters have long looked with disfavour at images that are artificially small merely because the uploader has decided to hold the higher-resolution version back. It is important, in my view, that we encourage users to upload at high resolution, and we can do that by supporting the 2Mpx limit. I would support this if a higher-resolution version were to be uploaded. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A technical reason might be to increase the sharpness. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a retarded reason. The sharpness isn't actually increased, it's just harder to see the blur because it's smaller. Information is lost. Plrk (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of that, but it could still be a reason. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Keeping bigger resolutions for oneself is a choice, and voting against a picture for that reason makes me think that people vote for Commons and not for the picture itself. It's not by absolutely wanting a high resolution version that you will appeal uploaders, you know. See what it lead to for File:Bébé Phoque de Weddell - Baby Weddell Seal.jpg: people were like “you don't have control on your high-res version any more, sorry” (while upload was a honest mistake), and I'm now sure that Ehquionest (talk · contribs) will never want to upload again. But yes, I see your point. →Diti the penguin — 17:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That's probably the reason for not uploading the full resolution version of the file. In some way I do understand him for not uploading it, since I'm heading in the same direction more and more. Wikipedia's articles can be well illustrated with a photograph <2mpx and Wikipedia is becoming a free haven for companies, who can now obtain and use good pictures for free. I'm not against school children using them for projects at school, but large companies... As an example: Take a look at the website of the Top of the Rock observation platform in NYC (Rockefeller Center). The intro (so don't skip it) uses a panorama taken by user Dschwen and they probably didn't pay a dime (This one is uploaded under GNU, so he probably doesn't mind, but that's besides the point.). If you want to encourage photographers to upload larger files, you will have to do better then dismissing the pictures from becoming FP's. There is currently no license available on Wikipedia, which doesn't permit the use of files outside of Wikipedia's projects.--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The the reason for there being no license under which an image can be restricted is because we are a free repository that is the whole purpose of Commons and the reason for Wikipedia and all he other Wikimedia projects. I sure Dschwen has many photos that have been used else where, I have had a few used even Britannica uses one of my images. Ultimately we make a choice as to how much and what we choose to upload, if that choice means that the image doesnt meet the communities criteria for FP then thats a choice the uploader makes. FP is about being our best work and small images have a harder time convincing the community they are our best work. Gnangarra 10:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably upload at full size if commons had a non-commercial licence. Opposes based on downsampling at COM:FPC don't motivate me. Downsampling can increase the apparent sharpness of an image, in my case though it isn't needed, I am using high quality equipment and (usually) good technique. BTW, The slight crop only needs to be changed by four pixels to meet the 2mpix requirement. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, Creative Commons licenses do not include a resolution restriction where below a certain resolution the license applies but above the resolution it doesn't. I witnessed a pre-Creative Commons era real life situation where an image that did not exceed 300px and was watermarked with the photographers name was used to make a print that was 20 inches X 16 inches as that was what was available to the interested eh, print maker. I just don't think that your need to control how the image is managed can be obtained by resolution restrictions that you are using here and perhaps you should only show the image at the non-commercial show places that live up to your restriction requirements. A lot of people take nice photographs, those interested in reviews and acceptance need to consider who their audience is. -- carol (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support -- Avjoska (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per MichaelMaggs. Plrk (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 13:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The small size isn't really FP quality. However, it is perfectly acceptable for an author to upload at whatever size they want, to be used for other purposes of Commons. JalalV (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose size is an issue the composition is too cramped for my liking. Gnangarra 10:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I don't mind the crop. I only oppose down sampled images, if they lack in detail through it. That isn't the case here. And I'm not going to give you a hard time for coming 4 KB short on image size. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The bird is very well focused and the image has good detail but the crop is too tight near the tail, and too low with the unfocused ground. Mitigating reason for downscaling below the limit such a tight crop picture of a still bird? --Javier ME (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ogata Gekko, Women in Daily Life.jpg, not featured (insufficient votes)

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 18:57:00

•  Info created by Ogata Gekko - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Karel (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Please propose your reason to oppose, Karelj
•  Support --Twdragon (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (insufficient votes). D-Kuru (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Paul Cézanne, Mont Sainte-Victoire.jpg, not featured (insufficient votes)

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 18:46:03

•  Info created by Paul Cézanne - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Karel (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Karel, although I think his accusations might have been too strong. Not impressed by this painting. --JalalV (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (insufficient votes). D-Kuru (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Cole, The Oxbow.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 18:44:57

•  Info created by Thomas Cole - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Javier ME (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too small (original is 130.8 × 193 cm). Lycaon (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Lycaon. —kallerna™ 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:The Five Deer Hermitage.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 18:43:22

•  Info created by Li Shida - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- GerardM (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Nice image from an important collection.
•  Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose A valuable picture, but it looks like there are several dirt stains? I am not a restorationist, but it looks like a straight scan. Unfortunately, historical images suffer because they need to be judged twice. One, how impressive the original is, and two, the quality of the restoration. I would say this passes the first, but to my untrained eye, not the second. --JalalV (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lacking wow. Lycaon (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose —kallerna™ 19:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Japanese archer 1878b.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 20:34:04

•  Info created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Japanese archer 1878.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --SvonHalenbach (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Kosiarz-PL 15:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova is one of the most important contributors to Wikipedia, so I suggest you think twice before making accusations like these. Nice job with the restoration. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Do 'the most important contributors to Wikipedia' have more rights than the lesser contributors? Lycaon (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't, but the remark concerned a statement by Karel, which has been removed. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest one thinks twice before making accusations to any contributor, regardless of his/her importance. ;-). Lycaon (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Lycaon (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. This so called restoration does not impress me. A mere crop would have sufficed. Maybe a slight levels adjustment. But altering the paper structure by removing inclusions is neither necessary, nor do I think it is even acceptable. That clone-job time is better spent elsewhere (removing real artifacts like scratches or fold-marks on scans). --Dschwen (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is just a drawing, I don't find it very special. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It is pretty darn cool (when seen in larger size) Crapload (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Historical valuable image --Twdragon (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow --Pom² (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:James Watt's Workshop.jpg, not featured (FPX)

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 12:08:58

•  Info created by Frankie Roberto - uploaded by Frankie Roberto - nominated by Frankie Roberto -- Frankie Roberto (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Frankie Roberto (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- The light isn't divided evenly. No object focused. Avjoska (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality is quite terrible. —kallerna™ 13:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - cell phone shot with all its features: washed out colors, color noise, blur, uneven lighting --Leafnode 06:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Lycaon (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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.

Crapload (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:18th dynasty pharaonic crown by John Campana.jpg, not featured (FPX)

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 07:10:17

•  Info created by John Campana - uploaded by Leoboudv - nominated by Leoboudv -- Leoboudv (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Leoboudv (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Lycaon (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Model of a chariot from the Oxus Treasure by Nickmard Khoey.jpg, not featured (FPX)

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 06:56:01

•  Info created by Nickmard Khoey - uploaded by Leoboudv - nominated by Leoboudv -- Leoboudv (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Leoboudv (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Much too small, out of focus, and other objects intruding on the shot. Sorry.203.35.135.133 09:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Lycaon (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Nižbor, opylování květin II.jpg, not featured (FPX)

Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2009 at 12:33:09

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Aktron (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: nothing on the picture is identified

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.

Please also categorize better. Lycaon (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I'd think about that, but I did not :-) Well for the next time. --Aktron (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the butterfly is probably a Zygaena sp. (exact species to be checked) and the flower a Centaurea sp. (again, species to be checked). Lycaon (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but I am not a botanician or zoologician so a great risk of error is there. I'd advise someone much more skilled to help there. --Aktron (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Aktron. You could ask here for propper identification on the butterfly. I think it's Zygaena (Mesembrynus) purpuralis, Zygaeninae in Germany called Blutströpfchen (Stresemann 2) Regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Aktron (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Trajan’s Kiosk (Josh Whitley).jpg, not featured (FPX)

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 09:33:20

•  Info created by Josh Whitley - uploaded by Leoboudv - nominated by Leoboudv -- Leoboudv (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Leoboudv (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Lycaon (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Might I suggest that you read the Guidlines at the top of the page, Leoboudv. 203.35.135.133 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FILE:Platanus.JPG, not featured (FPX)

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 21:45:08

•  Info created by Tiago Fioreze - uploaded by Tiago Fioreze - nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the file is insufficiently identified, noisy, not sharp, oversaturated and probably suffers from perspective issues.

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

Lycaon (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm not sure this justifies FPX template rather than simple Oppose. But I can't support it because I agree with Lycaon's comments. There should be a bit more detail of the leaves of at least one tree, but these are disappointing. I am wondering whether there is a general fault with the recent crop of cameras, that they offer 7 to 10 Mpx images with 4 to 5 Mpx optics? We did not see the problems before because the image resolution masked it. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment I think this is an unnecessary FPX template. I would agree with an oppose opinion about this photo regarding sharpness and noisiness. Apart from insufficient file data (?), I don't think the other factors (saturation and perspective issues) are a problem. It's a personal choice. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

• Identification is insufficient actually means that the trees should be identified (scientifically) to species level as they are the main topic of the photograph. IMO FPX is justifiable for any of the major shortcomings (i.e. id) and the others are just corroborating issues. Lycaon (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Identification is not required for featured pictures, unlike quality pictures. →Diti the penguin — 11:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Id is always required if an organism is the main topic of the image. Mitigation can be given (→generic level) for difficult stuff like some insects or composites, but never for organisms like e.g. birds or trees. Lycaon (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment Lycaon is right. A FP should be perfect regarding an ID, propper file name & description. These pictures will be POTD someday and are the best of the best what Commons offers out there. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the info Lycaon, you should put it on the nomination requirements. :) →Diti the penguin — 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Tiago, please don't remove nominations from the candidate list as long they are not closed propperly and being archived. You can apply the '''{{withdraw}}''' template if you want to to cut your nomination short. Regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • My apologies, Richard. When I read that after 24 hours, if no contrary views on the FPX template would be made, the nomination should be closed. I misunderstood that I should remove it. I will apply the withdraw template instead. Thanks for the info. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

 I withdraw my nomination

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - At the Edge of the Brook (1875).jpg, not delisted

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2009 at 20:36:41

•  Info An image that does not even give a hint of a source should not be a "featured picture" on the Commons. (Original nomination)
•  Delist -- AndreasPraefcke (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Indeed, it should not even be on Commons. I have nominated it for deletion as "no source", and it may be that that will flush out the missing information. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Delist —kallerna™ 14:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist JalalV (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Suspend for the moment, pending Maggs' deletion review. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep The author is known and died more than 100 years ago. I could not care less about a source. It is completely orthogonal. Crapload (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist --Avala (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep --Musia! (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep --SvonHalenbach (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep Missing source is not a reason to delist the image. Try to find out the source. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep - Man On Mission (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 4 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --D-Kuru (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Gdańsk kamienice przy Długim Targu.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 17:05:00

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Sfu (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Well done stiching. --Curnen (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  Well ... actually it's not stiching. I've only did a perspective correction with hugin. But it's still created with hugin. I'm going to change the template text in order for it not to be mistaking. Sfu (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Definitely a QI, but not FP-quality. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting, clear, nice colors. This picture struck me more than many other FPs. JalalV (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lack of "wowness". —kallerna™ 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Avjoska (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Ala z ^talk 07:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose and agree with User:Massimo Catarinella and User:Kallerna. Light is suboptimal and there are some heads without bodies along the lower edge. --Siebengang (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not liking the lighting all that much. --Dori - Talk 03:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Zepper-BK 117-C2-(EC145)-SchweizerischeRettungsflugwacht.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 17:09:58

•  Info created by Curnen - uploaded by Curnen - nominated by Curnen -- Curnen (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Hope you like it, too ;-) Curnen (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I do. --norro 17:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, not exactly sharp, but alright. --Aqwis (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like it too. :) →Diti the penguin — 17:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --SvonHalenbach (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- I particularly like the snow being kicked up in the bottom right portion of the image.JohnIngraham (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral The chopper is sharp, but maybe too much so: there are white halos from overprocessing. Otherwise fine for me. Lycaon (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Lycaon + the snow is again blue + lack of sharpness. It's cool thou. —kallerna™ 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I can foresee you opposing to a future FP depicting icebergs, you saying that it is too blue. ;) →Diti the penguin — 20:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice photo--Jagro (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Schleienlöcher Hard 360° Panorama.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 20:32:34

•  Info 360° Pano with 28 Pics: The Schleienlöcher nature reserve in Hard (Austria) with view towards the Pfänder the Gebhardsberg and the Bregenzerwald. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Wozu hast du 28 Aufnahmen gebraucht ? :-)) --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

versteh die Frage nicht ganz. Um rundum zu kommen. :-| ? --Böhringer (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hast du Hochkantbilder in einer Reihe gemacht ? Mich interessiert die Technik --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

ja, und je näher das Objekt ist, desto grösser sollte die Bildüberlappung sein, damit keine Stichingfehler vorkommen. --Böhringer (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bei mir wird das immer nix, zefix :-)

•  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support impressive ! --ianaré (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sufficiently interesting composition, poor harsh lighting. Crapload (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Zaandam2.jpg, Withdraw

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 21:57:24

•  Info created by James Abbott McNeill Whistler - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Zaandam.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support nice restoration, Gnangarra 10:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment These are not uploads but restorations. Quite a relevant and different thing. GerardM (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- different type of work of an important artist.. The restoration makes it useful. GerardM (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I must agree with the sentiment expressed by Karel, although I do think his accusations went too far. I think that Durova (and others) do some excellent restorations, and that these are a very valuable part of Commons. Unfortunately, not everything should be featured. This picture could have the best restoration in the world, and I still wouldn't want it featured, as the original is not very striking, despite whatever historical value it might have. I would recommend choosing from among the high quality restorations, and choosing the most powerful images from among them to be nominated as featured. These represent and advertise the category of historical pictures in a much stronger way. In the same manner, I hope modern photographers will only choose the best of their photos to be nominated as featured. --JalalV (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as JalalV. Wow, however ill-defined, also has its place here. Lycaon (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per JalalV. —kallerna™ 15:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Withdraw nom. per feedback. Durova (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Frans Hals, De magere compagnie.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 22:14:31

•  Info created by Frans Hals - uploaded, nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Why should he stop? These are great pictures of important pieces of art. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Prefer above painting. --JalalV (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Cropped with several centimeters on all four sides. Lycaon (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 15:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 

File:Bartholomeus van der Helst, Banquet of the Amsterdam Civic Guard in Celebration of the Peace of Münster.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 22:12:31

•  Info created by Bartholomeus van der Helst - uploaded, nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support i like it. could you upload such pictures as png in the future? --SvonHalenbach (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Please don't. --Dschwen (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Why should he stop? These are great pictures of important pieces of art. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral I like this painting, and would be happy to see it featured in some form. Just a couple of reservations: a) Is this the best resolution we can get? b) Is there any way to fix the two vertical lines on the right and left of the painting? (I don't know if this is possible or not) --JalalV (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Indeed a bit small for an oeuvre that is 2.32 × 5.47 m :-o. Lycaon (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's great image, and it's not small. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:John Singer Sargent, Gondoliers’ Siesta.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 22:10:49

•  Info created by John Singer Sargent - uploaded, nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- MartinD (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 

File:Night Watch detail 3.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 22:09:26

•  Info created by Rembrandt - uploaded, nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Why not the whole painting? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not his most interesting piece. --JalalV (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't see the point of featuring a very small part of a much larger painting. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- MartinD (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose —kallerna™ 19:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment This is a very important detail - imposible light, but rather... Valued images. Artists know. Przykuta (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pyramid of 35 spheres animation original.gif, not featured

Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2009 at 00:27:50

•  Info created by Blotwell - uploaded by Blotwell - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment It's a really cool picture, but there's something troubling me on the top sphere and I can't put my finger on what it is. But I'm no expert, so no vote from me :). Patrícia ^msg 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The top sphere looks like a billboard --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Teaching aids are important. It displays refraction, reflection, rotation & color multiplication, but sorry, it looks a bit cheap and the billboard effect (top sphere) is odd. --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support interesting animation, the top ball just appears to be static, Gnangarra 10:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose scenery and lighting are terrible at this rendered animation --Simonizer (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support relaxing.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The backgroud is odd + as other opposers. —kallerna™ 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Richard Bartz - sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support interesting! (Know Nothing (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Comment Why the top sphere looks odd is that it does not rotate with the rest. It is like a fixed pivot. And spaced off by a layer of invisible lubricating oil. Perhaps it needs some reflection of the stack or some detail which would rotate. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Magnifique ! --Dsant (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per other opposers. Lycaon (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Moon behind tree.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2009 at 15:45:06

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Kprateek88. This is only cropped, not downsampled. -- Kprateek88 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kprateek88 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Kinda dark... Just not my cup of tea. —kallerna™ 19:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the idea and composition but that's all. There is really nothing sharp in this picture. --JuliusR (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I like the picture but I'm not sure it is encyclopedic. I just can't think of an article where to use it. Avjoska (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Wikimedia Commons is a Media File Repository (not the same as wikipedia!), so it doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia article. Some of these pictures are used for other wiki projects like wikibooks. I would have supported this picture--as I quite like it--but it is too blurry in fullsize. --JalalV (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose lack of sharpness - Man On Mission (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Snow RB.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2009 at 17:07:19

•  Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Snow.
•  Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am rather surprised you're making this nomination. The quality just isn't there for such a common subject. I feel like I'm missing something as your nominations are usually of much higher quality. --Dori - Talk 17:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Must agree with Dori, as I am usually quite impressed with your nominations. I love snow, but this picture does not strike me in any meaningful way. --JalalV (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have seen much better looking snow ;). Yea, sorry, but it's only snow. —kallerna™ 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Thanks, Richard. You have encouraged me to propose one of my hoar frost pictures which I thought was not quite good enough compared with the sharpness of detail which you usually produce. Actually quite an original idea, to make a picture of snow in such an unusual way. But it is too much on the vertical centre line, and needs something on one side to put the stump on a rule-of-thirds location. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I'm going to go against the trend here, and support this. It's got a simplicity about it that just draws me in. It doesn't rely on epic panoramas, or or flashy light effects, and it's all the better for it, in my view. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Only snow, too white.--Jagro (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ursus maritimus mother with cub.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2009 at 21:34:22

•  Info The image is a digital picture of my old film print.
•  Info The image was taken in the wild.
•  Info created, uploaded by and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I really like it, but the quality isn't even near. Sorry. —kallerna™ 19:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Composition is OK. But as Kallerna said, it is not the best quality, in definition. But the guidelines say, "Symbolic meaning or relevance…. Opinion wars can begin here…. A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." So while it is not a good picture in every respect, I think it qualifies for support. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  OpposeQuality isn't there --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Jagro (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Difficulty of getting this shot justifies it amply. Some people might not recognize that shooting a Polar bear is a bit different that shooting a dog Taollan82 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ack opposers. -- Laitche (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with —kallerna -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Nygårdstangen panorama sun.jpg, withdraw

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 00:11:09

•  Info created by Aqwis - uploaded by Aqwis - nominated by Aqwis -- Aqwis (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Aqwis (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Good Quality but boring Know Nothing (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Avjoska (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral per Know Nothing --Pudelek (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It is almost boring. Crapload (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Aqwis (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Polished slice of petrified wood.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 00:16:04

•  Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler The image shows the middle of a polished slice of a petrified tree from Arizona. After the enlargement of the image it is possible to see the homesteads and the remains of living things deep in the tree. They lived approximately 230 million years ago in the late Triassic.-- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Lycaon (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great job! —kallerna™ 19:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. --Karel (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Fantastic! (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Support Good clear definition of an unusual topic of high encyclopaedic interest. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow. Avjoska (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Seriously? Crapload (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Good EV --Muhammad 19:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This is just the sort of intriguing image I like to see. Makes a change from all those insects. ;} Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's beautiful. -- Laitche (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong  Support , a beautiful piece of nature and great quality.  Comment: It would be nice to have some information about the size of the piece on the image description page. --Siebengang (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Oh, sorry, now I found it. I will put the size into the image description as well. --Siebengang (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:ALVIN Panorama.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 02:29:54

•  InfoThis is a panorama capturing the DSV ALVIN on the deck of the R/V Atlantis. I believe this image is unique and important because it capture not only the ALVIN but details related to operation such as the A-frame crane and steel weights. I acknowledge the the picture has some technical shortcomings, but I believe that the difficulty of obtaining such a picture make up for this (i.e. limited access to deck of R/V Atlantis, rocking of the boat while in operation, etc). Suggestions, please. created by Taollan82 - uploaded by Taollan82 - nominated by Taollan82 -- Taollan82 (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Taollan82 (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Messy composition, quality isn't that good. —kallerna™ 19:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very ugly photo. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Chaotic. --Karel (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not very easy to understand without extensive captioning. Too many important elements are cut off (such as the boat davit) and too many nonessential elements intervene. Durova (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ase o fuku onna2.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 08:47:39

•  Info created by Kitagawa Utamaro - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Ase o fuku onna.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --JalalV (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --GerardM (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral If it isn't a full image, it is strongly recommended to change cropping settings --Twdragon (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The only thing that was cropped was unused border space. Durova (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Twdragon (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:IFC HKSAR.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 09:20:37

•  Info created by Calvin yeung| - uploaded by Calvin yeung - nominated by Calvin yeung -- Calvin yeung (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Info This picture was digitally retouched to enhance the color of the sky and remove some dark lines at the bottom right corner. I believed the digital alteration is within the acceptable range for the nomination. The overall image still shows a true record of the buildings in Central Hong Kong.
•  Info There are many buildings in the photo. The tallest is the Hong Kong International Finance Center phase II and at the bottom of the picture is the famous 3rd generation Hong Kong Star Ferry Pier at Central(HK). The Pier was removed in 2006. It is now replaced by a new pier.
•  Oppose Ordinary snapshot, not very sharp, noisy --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy. —kallerna™ 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy, hotpixels and sensor dust. Know Nothing (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Is it my misimpression or there is barrel distortion in the tallest building? (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Neutral The sky made an excellent background! But some technical imperfections make me hesitant to vote for promotion. Crapload (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Panorama of Neris.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 11:00:12

•  Info created by Juliux - uploaded by Juliux - nominated by Juliux -- Juliux (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Juliux (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Looks great as a thumb, but the quality isn't very good. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Close but no cigar. Quality is insufficient (sharpness, detail, CA). Lycaon (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry. —kallerna™ 19:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral I think quality is fine considering the sheer pixel count of the panorama. Crapload (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I've seen sharper pictures here, but atmosphere on this one is great. --Lošmi (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 

File:Gasteracantha mammosa spiderlings next to their eggs capsule.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 14:06:53

•  Info created ,-uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The background ruins this image. Herr Kriss (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy, blurred. —kallerna™ 18:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment See here for previous nomination. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael. The idea was that Hans will remember that he supported both image in the first time and will do the same now. I guess now he is more strict :) --Mbz1 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose - misty. Avjoska (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not enough DoF. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative 1, not featured

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too low DOF. Herr Kriss (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Blurry. —kallerna™ 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment See here for previous nomination. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- This one humanizes spiders somehow. Belasd (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Flower reflections in raindrop.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 17:08:21

•  InfoLots of wow for everyone I hope ;-) Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Muhammad 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose  Neutral Nice picture, but barely more than 2Mpx does not impress me for FP. If it was 3Mpx+ I definitely would have supported this one! (Especially since the Canon EOS 400D is capable of over 10Mpx...) --JalalV (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Funny. Why expecting a higher image size when you was delivering only barely 3Mpx for your own last nomination on FPC ? Either way 3 or 2 Mpx is small but within the rules. Nobody was opposing your picture because of the small size, so you shouldn't, too. If your answer is it's because the eye was cropped then we can assume the same for Muhammad's picture as long nobody was asking him. Regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think 3Mpx is at the smaller end, but it is generally considered an acceptable replacement size for 5"x7" (decent consumer-sized) prints. I use this as a minimum baseline for any pictures that aren't web-only, especially as modern technology makes small sizes increasingly obselete. Anything less than this tends to get quite pixelated. JalalV (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have provided the camera information. If this image was taken with a 3mp camera, would you oppose it? IMO, the camera should not be taken into consideration, that is why we have fixed criteria to judge from. This picture is a quick attempt at a focus stacking since the picture was taken after a heavy rainfall whilst it was still windy with the naturally present good light. (Thanks to advice given by Richard Bartz). With a focus stack, some parts of the resulting image need to be cropped out. --Muhammad 11:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If it was 3Mpx from a 3Mpx camera, then I wouldn't have opposed it ;) Seriously though, the camera isn't as important as the fact that I couldn't see any logical reason for such a small size (other than significant downsampling or a very heavy crop). Since I know very little about focus stacking, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (although from what I can tell, it only requires quite minor cropping, with a process similar to HDR). I've changed my vote above to neutral, and I'll let the rest of Commons decide. --JalalV (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Poor composition. A way from this one of Luc Viatour -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like this photo. It recalls me simplicity (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Oppose The central lower drop, close to centre of the image, is the best example of what you give as the subject of the picture (the unopened tiger lily shown in the droplets). Try again, if the droplets are available daily, with that one droplet as the main feature, centred at rule of thirds, lower left, and showing enough of the stalk and any other droplets to put the droplet in context. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Avjoska (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I was going to oppose, but then I saw this one. I think that yours is better. —kallerna™ 12:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Twdragon (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per previous --Pom² (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:CapeTownPanoramaFromTableMountain.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 17:39:18

•  Info created by Fcatarinella - uploaded by Fcatarinella - nominated by Tm -- Tm (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tm (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The ocean looks bit weird... But still I'll support. —kallerna™ 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Beau travail. -- Acarpentier 12:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Interesting, but bad quality. Could you retake it with a polaization filter or UV-Haze-filter? The whites seem to be a bit blown out too. --SvonHalenbach (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, a polarizer will not work for a stiched panorama and I don't think this image will really gain from a UV filter. --Siebengang (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Avjoska (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose An unrealistic and somewhat distorted representation of a scene I am very familiar with Maciej (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition, no wow. --Karel (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like it and I think the quality is very good. Just the cable car wires in the lower left corner... --Siebengang (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I didn't fall of my chair, sorry --Pom² (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:ArcHere.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 19:30:34

•  Info created by Tiago Fioreze - uploaded by Tiago Fioreze - nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose too dark! Vanjagenije (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Is it tilted? ... quite impressive. —kallerna™ 15:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info It is not tilted. I believe that the angle I took this photo may give you this wrong impression. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Oppose Doesnt stand up to current featured nightshots (Know Nothing (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
  •  Comment How do current night shots stand up? I think your comment is very subjective. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Oppose Not very sharp and in need of perspective correction --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pampas-panoramica.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 02:46:16

•  Info created by Digary - uploaded by Digary - nominated by Digary -- Digary ¿Yanapa?, ¿Tapuna?, ¿kutichiku?... 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Panorámica de la ciudad de Pampas. Overview of the city of Pampas.Digary ¿Yanapa?, ¿Tapuna?, ¿kutichiku?... 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Digary ¿Yanapa?, ¿Tapuna?, ¿kutichiku?... 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment You used two images. The right image is lighter than the left image. In the middle of the panorama is a vertical line. Some clouds may be too white. Try to make a better panorama without the line, with darker clouds and the same darker brightness in both images.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bad quality. Some odd black stripe on the right corner. —kallerna™ 15:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose bad quality Know Nothing (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Low resolution, sloppy stitching (very obvious seams. I suggest you look into hugin+enblend!). On a side note: if your signature is longer than your contributions something is off... --Dschwen (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Andean boys.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 03:21:12

•  Info created by Digary - uploaded by Digary - nominated by Digary -- Digary ¿Yanapa?, ¿Tapuna?, ¿kutichiku?... 03:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Niños de los Andes. Andean boys.Digary ¿Yanapa?, ¿Tapuna?, ¿kutichiku?... 03:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Digary ¿Yanapa?, ¿Tapuna?, ¿kutichiku?... 03:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose a bit noisy. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bad quality, lightning is distracting. —kallerna™ 15:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bad quality, strong Noise (Know Nothing (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Oppose The photo is not sharp (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Oppose Avjoska (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose La escena es simpática pero no puede ser una FP por la mala iluminación, figuras movidas y mezcladas, ruido... --Javier ME (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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 noisy, unsharp, and has horrible lighting.

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

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:折鶴 WUXGA.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 12:34:41

•  Info created by Laitche - uploaded by Laitche - nominated by Vanjagenije -- Vanjagenije (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Vanjagenije (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral no wow Know Nothing (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition is part of the reason for "no wow" in preceding comment. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No wow is the misnomer of 2008 :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Subtle beauty --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Avjoska (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Simple but impressive. —kallerna™ 12:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Per other supporters --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose no wow, cause of the boring composition, lighting and perspective --Simonizer (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral I feel those swans have potential, but the current boring setting does them no favours. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Those are not swans, but cranes. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Whoops, those are indeed cranes. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral What a pity that the ground is not white… →Diti the penguin — 11:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lighting is not so good - sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support as the author :) -- Laitche (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Camponotus flavomarginatus ant.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 13:10:36

•  Info Commons does not have many FPs of ants. This picture has good lighting and quality and is identified to species level. The ant was quite small and the picture had to be cropped. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 13:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Muhammad 13:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose One of the legs isn't focused. —kallerna™ 15:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The ant is small and at this high level of magnification, getting everything in focus is impossible with a live, moving subject, since further decrease in the aperture will lead to lack of sharpness and focus stacking is not an option. Muhammad 15:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but the background colouring spoils it for me. You have done well with the level of magnification required, and I can appreciate that this may be worth trying again as a difficult subject which the guidlines allow for incousion in spite of poorer quality of photo. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support For all of the reasons the photographer listed. Rarity and difficulty of identification increases the impressiveness. -- carol (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • please stop voting when it's closed --Pom² (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Jim Root Mayhem.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 18:39:50

•  Info created by bill from jersey city - uploaded by Blackngold29 - nominated by Rezter -- Rezter (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Rezter (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but the light flare on the right spoils the overall composition and contrast, and I have seen better of this style by my son. Don't get too discouraged, and keep trying. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Avjoska (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy. —kallerna™ 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Vitrail cathédrale Saint-Étienne,Toulouse.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 20:42:26

•  InfoStained glass, cathedrale Saint-Étienne (Toulouse, France), created by Pom² - uploaded by Pom² - nominated by Pom² -- Pom² (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pom² (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Enthusiastically. A spectacular 42.3M pixel, and a clear view of another difficult subject. Did you do a composite of several smaller pictures? The detail on some of the faces is as if you had the live people in front of you. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thx :) There is ~20 stitched images, original is more than 100mp, but I down-sampled it because top of stained glass is 10m / 15m above the ground, and wasn't really sharp (and there is no other way than shoot it from the ground, quite close) --Pom² (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Hard work, much care, a good ladder and tripod! -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent image! Vanjagenije (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --JalalV (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great image, good details...--Digary ¿Yanapa?, ¿Tapuna?, ¿kutichiku?... 02:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Gorgeous Dcrjsr (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Kudos for the large size. Good quality with accompanying wow. Lycaon (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  08:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yep. —kallerna™ 12:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - WOW --Pudelek (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great shot! (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Oppose Neat, but not enough wow, IMO. Crapload (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not enough wow? What do you want, the Lord Jesus Christ to appear and give it His endorsement? An image of the Blessed Virgin in the lower left corner? You just can't please some people. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - very well made - Peripitus (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Ala z ^talk 07:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support A great photo with sharp, clear and vivid colours. The exposure setting is just right. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support: Very high quality work! --Siebengang (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Hoar frost 01.jpg , not featured

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 22:53:47

•  Info created by Robert of Ramsor - uploaded by Robert of Ramsor - nominated by Robert of Ramsor I did not think this was that good, but I am grateful to Richard for his Snow picture for giving me the encouragement. At least you can see the shapes of the ice crystals if you zoom in. (And if you don't like the colour fringes on the edges of the picture, please complain to FujiFilm - they made the lens.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice!--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I already complained to FujiFilm :). It's ok, but not FP. —kallerna™ 12:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition, sharpness, color fringes don't make it a FP -- Siebengang 14:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't help the colour fringes as they are characteristic of the Fujifilm lens. Ditto some aspects of the sharpness. It looks like Kallerna has had the same complaint. I can't afford to think of replacing my camera for perhaps 5 years. (Having only just got it.) But there is perhaps the option of adding on a purely factual basis some examples of the colour fringes caused by the lens defects on the FinePix s5800 article. It is only a stub at the moment, and will be greatly improved by illustrations of user's experience. In defence of this horafrost example, I would say that, in spite of the limitations of the lens, the central area does show detailed ice crystal structure which is not as visible on some of the other hoarfrost images on this page. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Colour fringes are not characteristic for Fujifilm lenses only. Many, especially zoom lenses fail on that matter. So, don't blame your new camera! In some cases, it is possible to correct the fringes 'manually' with Photoshop by selecting the blue or purple areas one by one and reducing their saturation. But this seems difficult to do here. -- MJJR (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I've been looking at some others on review sites, and trying a few test photos. One conclusion is that review sites tend not to give examples of the worst case, which is high contrast printed page, black on white, taken with options like the "double macro" setting as this was. But I have a fair test picture with no noticeable fringes by selecting subject, background, and aperture, to minimise contrast etc. Also, I can get negligible fringing on other subjects by selecting mid-range focal lengths instead of extreme telephoto or wide-angle, and manually setting small aperture. Which then means using a tripod because of the longer exposure time, or noise on high ISO setting. We are all up against this, and it is a part of learning not to depend on "snap-shot" mode - the Auto setting on the digital camera. It rarely gets it right first time. But it does mean that you get something where you may have missed the picture altogether. I have said this to remind those who may be new here. Are there any photo processing software packages which, like Audacity for sound, are freely available? -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
        • GIMP. --Dschwen (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not enough DoF. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Keep frozen orange juice cans with ice crystals.jpg, withdraw

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 00:20:25

•  Info created ,uploaded by and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Everybody takes pictures of ice and snow and I got jealous because there's neither ice nor snow, where I live, so here's an image that was taken in a local grocery store. :)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- seems that it is only a part of a picture. Avjoska (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't like it. Quality isn't that good and the composition - well, it's just ice. I can open my door and see much better looking snow and ice. Sry. —kallerna™ 12:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's right. Anybody could open a door and see the ice and snow outside. Very few will bother to take a look and try to see the beautiful ice crystals in unusual places. I feel sorry for you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

 

• I liked it. it was somehow witty. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Icicles Partnachklamm rb.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 02:04:30

•  Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Icicles @ Partnachklamm
•  Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose For some reason, the picture looks bit odd on fullsize. Composition is ok, but not that good. This is much better. —kallerna™ 12:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The noise in the darker parts of the ice is a shame, but it is nonetheless a good picture. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Kallerna - composition. --Karel (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The above image is a much better shot. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose: Unbalanced composition, no object for scale. The other one is much better. --Siebengang (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Partnachklamm rb.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 02:38:52

•  Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Partnachklamm, Garmisch Partenkirchen, Germany.
•  Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice lighting, sharpness, composition, feel of place - and geocoded. Dcrjsr (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Ok. —kallerna™ 12:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support nice. --Dschwen (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Well done --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support beautiful --ianaré (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's a magical scene. I half expect the cast of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe to walk around the corner. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It recalls me a movie scenario :) (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Support --Twdragon (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral CA in the lower right corner. -- Laitche (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support: Nice! Much better than the second one. --Siebengang (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Seasquirt.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 10:25:12

•  InfoNudibranch (Nembrotha lineolata) laying an egg spiral on a sea squirt (Polycarpa aurata) near Metinaro, East Timor. Created by Nick Hobgood - uploaded and nominated by Lycaon (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lycaon (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Quality is at least decent, if you consire that is taken under the surface. —kallerna™ 12:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  21:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support some noise on left side, but otherwise great --Ianaré 23:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Spiral egg! -- Belasd (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good Ev and quality --Muhammad 04:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Bizarre. --Javier ME (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Twdragon (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great colors! (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice colours. -- Laitche (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support great pic...eye catchy colors -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support →Diti the penguin — 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support: Very interesting and good quality. --Siebengang (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --D-Kuru (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

 Comment A very nice surprise! Thanks. Nick Nhobgood (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Eiskristall Pfosten 2.JPG, featured

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 11:35:43

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Böhringer (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice idea, but the sharpness, or lack of it, on full zoom is dissapointing. It is fuzzy in the middle of the frost area, which is not compensated for by the sharp edge. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Picture with wow effect.--Jagro (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Twdragon (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Definetly a "wow"-picture.--HouseGhost^Discussion 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Wow -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Close, but no cigar. —kallerna™ 13:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Chickens in market.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 16:25:58

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Chickens in market in Mazatlán, Sinaloa, México -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Some might find the composition messy, but I like it, finding it has a real life feeling. Mmm I'm hungry. --Muhammad 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Funny. Maybe you could crop a few pixels of the left (the white bucket?). Lycaon (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Cropped, uploaded new version, thanks for the comment. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You should stick to the extraordinary capture of the ordinary. You're good at that. Lycaon (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Hmmm chicken. --Homer Simpson (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Fine composition. Crop would be nice. —kallerna™ 19:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Good picture, but nothing special for me. →Diti the penguin — 20:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --TheWB (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral would like to see elbow and bucket cropped out. --ianaré (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support better now --ianaré (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ordinary subject, ordinary capture. Crapload (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very original. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The plastic bag distracts from the composition and would have been easy to remove. Durova (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Albertus teolog (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--HouseGhost^Discussion 16:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Durova about the plastic bag, but it it doesn't detract from the composition enough for me not to  Support. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Crazywell cross 1.JPG, featured

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 16:49:20

•  Info Ancient cross close to w:Crazywell Pool on southern w:Dartmoor. It may well have been used as a marker for the track (Monks’ Path) from the w:Buckfast Abbey to w:Tavistock Abbey. Burrator reservoir can be seen in the distance. Like the w:Maltese Cross the arms of the cross grow wider as they move away from the centre.
•  Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Looks good to me. —kallerna™ 19:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral It's not clear what message/feeling this photo brings to me (or to any other viewer) (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Support--Umnik (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice scenery and historical value. -- MJJR (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Valued, but not featured. Low resolution/blurry. --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Tetanocera sp rb.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 18:41:01

•  Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Marsh fly Sciomyzidae - (Tetanocera cf. ferruginea)
•  Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Magnificent! How you manage to keep the leaf and fly steady is a mystery --Muhammad 18:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's like hunting ... --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• • The EXIF date and the date provided are different ;) --Muhammad 18:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed. --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Am I the only one noticing the noise and lack of detail? You can do (you have done) much better -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a drawback from a Canon 40D feature which is called High Tone Priority . It causes slight noise in darker areas but despite I dont want to go without it because i paid a lot of money for that. :-)) --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But couldn't you just shoot with RAW instead of JPEG? Then you'd have much more control over it! Diliff (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Detail is fine with me... I don´t see noise, DOF according to focal length and macro. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent shot! (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Support Noise dont bother me. Great work --Simonizer (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Alvegaspar --ianaré (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  CommentSlight noise (fine grain) is better than smeared up areas through denoising because information isn't lost. I ensure that this kind of noise isn't visible when doing a 150 DPI photoprint thereof. (I would agree on color noise because it's harsher) --Richard Bartz(talk) 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I have the same camera, and I've noticed it too ... what's strange is that it's very inconsistant and hard to predict (for me anyway). Your other images don't usually suffer from this. --ianaré (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Not Richard's most stunning work (a high bar to jump) but a stunning enough work - Peripitus (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --D-Kuru (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice.（＾＾）／ -- Laitche (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but it looks noisy even on thumbnails. —kallerna™ 13:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Manzushir Khiid 149194574 c0a3034dae o.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 10:56:07

•  Info created by yeowatzup - uploaded by Gryffindor - nominated by Gryffindor -- Gryffindor (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Gryffindor (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It is somewhat interesting, but overall, the composition is unclear. Crapload (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral what is depicted ?? What is its significance ? GerardM (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a door of the gate to the temple. Depicted is the bronze handle in the traditional style as a lion or beast. A blue prayer shawl (khata) is tied around it, which is tradition in Mongolia. In the background the temple itself can be seen. I think it's a lovely image. Gryffindor (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support great composition and colors, quality good --ianaré (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Looks like something you'd find on the front a travel brochure. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It seems to tell a story. -- Belasd (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition doesn't do it for me. The door edge is too close to the center of the image. --Dori - Talk 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose lack of sharpness and no wow factor - Man On Mission (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. —kallerna™ 13:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing special. --Karel (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Детали волновых передач.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 12:23:27

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Twdragon (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Twdragon (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Need an understandable description first for your details of gear reductors. Lycaon (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Understandable description proposed --Twdragon (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Спасибо, now I understand. I have added a link on the English description. Regretfully I can't support because the parts don't show the working of the gearing. Lycaon (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It is very difficult to demonstrate work of such sophisticated mechanism on a static photograph. This photograph carries only aesthetic functions, we just use it for presentation purposes during lectures. --Twdragon (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  SupportThe parts are well arranged for the "still life" picture. You can see the machining marks (and rust) on the parts. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral -- Please write down the reason of your opposition --Twdragon (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Plumeria (Frangipani).jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 14:16:52

•  Info created by Maciej - uploaded by Maciej - nominated by Maciej -- Maciej (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Maciej (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, it's too noisy. —kallerna™ 14:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I am puzzled by the noise comment. Possibly it is the texture of the leaves and petals that you are seeing? Maciej (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral I like your composition for this photo, but it is rather dimmed. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Thanks - it is slightly 'dim' because thats how it is, the flowers of this particular species avoid the sunlight and grow within the foliage of the tree. Their purpose is to attract moths at night. --Maciej (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Jagro (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Twdragon (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Rather poor quality (lots of artefacts, oversaturated/exposed highlights) Dim light can avoided as Plumeria rubra will flower profusely and not only in shaded places or shaded by the leaves. Lycaon (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  CommentAgree with comment about the light. Fair quality, but I think you could improve it with a retake (assuming that this is in your garden and not in some place with expensive entry charges). But I note your point about that being how it is (reply to "dim"). Could you get any sunlight on it, even by use of a white sheet to reflect som extra light? Also, smaller aperture will sharpen it. However some flowers (like large white lillies) naturally have non-sharp edges to their petals. I don't agree about the "noise" comment, though. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Eye-catching. --Dori - Talk 03:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition is good, but quality is bad (oversharpened noise?) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct colors and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Indeed quite some noise on the flowers and on the leaves. Estrilda (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Yyterin lietteet-Duckboards.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 14:52:46

•  Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing outstanding, sorry! (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Question On the lower left side there are a lot of chromatic aberrations (pink and blue). Can I fix that for you and reupload the image ? (Adobe Lightroom can fix that with 2 clicks) --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course, if you can do it. It's PD anyway. Thanks for your effort. —kallerna™ 17:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks. —kallerna™ 10:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing catches my attention. Foreground (left) tree and branches out of focus. But I don't see the chromatic aberrations. (Maciej (talk) 20:399, 29 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Support Beautiful! Roquai (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  OpposeSorry, it is well composed and so on, but I agree with Maciej about nothing catching my attention. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Caracol Falls.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 19:49:57

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's a good composition in 3D as well as 2D. Dcrjsr (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Maciej (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 10:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice colours and composition. Everything is in focus and there is no fuzziness anywhere. A perfect photo. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Image is great, but 100% quality is quite strange, especially in bottom left trees --Pom² (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  SupportGood curtain of water in the falls, and generally good scene. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Splish splash --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice! --Estrilda (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Shoki2.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 20:43:41

•  Info created by Okumura Masanobu - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Shoki.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive ! --Muhammad 14:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Econt (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Picture of half a men, really nice, but why nomination for FP? --Karel (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Smalltalk for working out a nomination description/info is moved to here --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Info "Shōki zu" (Shōki striding), c. 1741-1751. The figure from Taoist mythology known as Shōki in Japan (Zhong Kui in China), was a slayer of demons. Published in tall and narrow pillar print dimensions. The artist Okumura Masanobu was a formative figure in ukiyo-e printmaking. Durova (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --GerardM (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Because we do not have anything representative of this style yet.
•  Support great ! --ianaré (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dark and gloomy, EV not withstanding. Lycaon (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Late vote, oops. Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:AllianzArena.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 20:46:31

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Question Do you know why it's blue ? By the way "Welcome to Munich" (my town), afterwards ;-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Smalltalk about the colors is moved to here --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose The subject and its color are attractive, but the composition overall is not. Crapload (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Contrast, composition, purple fringing --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Skottehytta-070820.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Upior polnocy - uploaded by Upior polnocy - nominated by Przykuta --Przykuta (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Przykuta (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment The atmosphere is very impressive, it attracts me somehow but I'm afraid that there's not much of the surroundings and it looks a bit cramped. As a pano or more wide-angled (with some more mountains and boundless expanse) it would be a burner. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Could you add the location? —kallerna™ 12:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The background is beautiful with the mountains but the building looks old and somewhat dilapidated. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment That being the entire point of the photograph... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • ??? --ianaré (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, it wouldn't be such a great photo if it was an average suburban office block, would it? The dilapidation of the house adds depth and emotion to the image. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      •  Support In other words, an antiquity. --Ayacop (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Richard Bartz. —kallerna™ 12:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I tended more to support instead of oppose :-)) --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose due to composition. The mountain top is jutting over the roof and looking like it's part of it. I don't know if it's possible, but from a higher vantage point (ladder, car roof?) it would have been great. --Dori - Talk 03:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral: I like the picture, but I think that it would have been possible to take a much better photo of this subject, landscape, light and mood (less interference of cabin and background, more focus on how the cabin is situated in the landscape). --Siebengang (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Бухта Озерко, губа Бол. Мотка.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 09:31:10

•  Info created by Sergey Gruzdev, uploaded, and nominated by Insider --Insider (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Insider (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose for lack of sharpness Andreas 06 (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose This place was once part of Finland. Well, nice picture and composition, but the quality is bad. —kallerna™ 14:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose noisy and lack of sharpness - Man On Mission (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral To much HDR in this picture :) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ack opposers, and overprocessed. --Dori - Talk 22:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Dikkop - Burhinus capensis.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 08:10:08

•  Info created by Maciej - uploaded by Maciej - nominated by Maciej -- Maciej (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Maciej (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Color vibration is lacking --Twdragon (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose noise --ianaré (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As other opposers. —kallerna™ 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Corect details and DoF. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- ist a nice close shoot. But the composition and color of the picture aren't *featured* style. I opend the pic in a edit-program and color seemd to be allot better,... Must be a color profile thing,... The reflection in the bird eye looks like a tent. Is it one? Amada44 (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• • No, not a tent. Probably the side of my house, taken from bedroom window Maciej (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

File:St Vitus Cathedral - Stained glass (retouch).jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 16:25:28

•  Info created by Pudelek - uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support A high quality photograph. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 13:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose This stained glass got nothing exceptional (and it's not cause I posted one...) --Pom² (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ack Pom². -- Crapload (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Milo Manara Lodz 2008.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 20:22:27

•  Info created and uploaded by Jaron11 - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Fuzzy, with slightly overblown highlights and an unappealing background.JohnIngraham (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose &ndash The person in the background just ruins it for me. – Jerry^teps 07:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is overexposed Crapload (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Not enough reason for FPX -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose: I think it is overexposed, and if I was the guy, I would not like to have this rather unfavourable picture of mine as a featured picture. --Siebengang (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral--Kuvaly (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Drip torch firing.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2009 at 01:08:50

•  Info created by hustvedt - uploaded by hustvedt - nominated by hustvedt -- Hustvedt (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Hustvedt (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--HouseGhost^Discussion 16:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose poor composition and lighting (next time have the sun behind you). --ianaré (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose An informative photo rather than a featured one (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
•  Oppose —kallerna™ 13:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral--Kuvaly (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose This seems like it would be a better candidate for w:WP:Valued picture candidates. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Larus delawarensis flight 2.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2009 at 08:36:17

•  Info Larus delawarensis in flight : created, uploaded, and nominated by ianaré (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- ianaré (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! —kallerna™ 12:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Nice shot! I like the fact that the natural environment is shown as well (50mm is a rather unusual focal length for bird flight shots). Unfortunately the seagull's posture (especially the feet) is not the normal "flight position" (compare e.g. Image:Larus_canus_in_flight.jpg), which decreases the usefulness of the image somewhat. Therefore my neutral vote. --Siebengang (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment you're right, it was not in fast horizontal flight (like this one here File:Larus_delawarensis_flight_3.jpg), rather it was hovering in moderate headwind. I changed the description page to reflect this. --ianaré (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sharp enough. I'm guessing the scene is fairly repeatable. That's what gulls do. --Dori - Talk 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree, not sharp enough. (Yay! First edit of the year! Only edit for the day. Bit bored, so a took a visit :) ) --Mr. Mario (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose good picture, but noisy background. - Man On Mission (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I guess this photo was the best the photographer could manage to get. →Diti the penguin — 18:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Looks great to me. --Lošmi (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Posterization in background and not sharp enough. -- Laitche (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose A VI rather than a FP nomination. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It looks very well.--Jagro (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --norro 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Overall composition. Crapload (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) (Too late --D-Kuru (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. D-Kuru (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

File:DDG59lights.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2009 at 06:24:17

•  Info created by Mass Communication Specialist James E. Foehl (US Navy) - uploaded by Durin - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support →Diti the penguin — 10:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Really cool! (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC))
  • There are about 40 more great military pictures I've found, I'm planning on nominating them over the coming months. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, doesn't look great as a thumbnail, but great in large resolutions. --Aqwis (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Photo is ok, but the sky is bit noisy. —kallerna™ 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Cool slow-shutter capture. The ship is poorly lit and overall the scene is not very appealing. Crapload (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition could be much more balanced and the zoom-lights effect is counterproductive for the image subject: First thought might be "explosion?" then "why are they shooting in a harbor?" then "oh, it is just the photographer playing. Relax...". --Siebengang (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's very nice play. --Lošmi (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Siebengang. Lycaon (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- looks great! Amada44 (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

File:View of Cluj.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2009 at 14:58:22

•  Info created by Lhgergo - uploaded by Lhgergo - nominated by Lhgergo -- lhgergo (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- lhgergo (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Over exposure and lack of sharpness - Man On Mission (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose: Composition, haze, tilted... --Siebengang (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose —kallerna™ 13:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose haze --Cayambe (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Cascata caracol2.jpg, delisted

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 09:49:47

•  Info Almost identical but better quality File:Caracol Falls.jpg is about to be featured. (Original nomination)
•  Delist -- Lycaon (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist —kallerna™ 14:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist I agree. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist me too --Pom² (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist I think the new one will make it. It's a improvement --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist --Kuvaly (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Mywood (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Gluehlampe 01 KMJ.jpg, not delisted

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2009 at 00:21:58

•  Info Low resolution and funny reflections not helped by recent modification to image (Original nomination)
•  Delist -- Tony Wills (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist Strong color artifacts around the blown highlights. --JY REHBY (discuter) 22:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep It is fine. Crapload (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist —kallerna™ 13:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep--Kuvaly (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep --Böhringer (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Mywood (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Gavin Hamilton - Coriolanus Act V, Scene III.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2009 at 09:54:25

•  Info created by Gavin Hamilton - uploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Act V, Scene III of Shakespeare's Coriolanus.
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
•  Oppose --Karel (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dark and gloomy. Lycaon (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to readjust the levels. This seemed right to me, but it shouldn't be too hard to get a different mix. I've uploaded my final version as a PNG here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Miomantis paykullii Luc Viatour.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2009 at 12:13:40

•  Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 13:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Question The composition is lovely. I don't want to play the wise guy, but isn't the mantis not a tad to overexposed and cold balanced, because normally it's green instead of mintish-white (glow-in-the-dark impression) which I think is a bit misleading for encyclopedical use. For photo art it may be working well. When turning the white balance to default it appears green, again but I agree that it's not banging that much as with the glow in the dark efx. EV or Photoart ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

müsste nur noch der Sensorfleck aus dem Flügel, dann gäbe es ein Pro für Richard Barz edit --Böhringer (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bin mir nicht sicher ob ich den Edit nominieren soll. Du kannst das aber gerne machen, die Datei liegt noch auf meinem Server --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

C'est un spécimen jeune. Sa couleur était plus ou moins comme cela. Cela change évidement suivant que le ciel est couvert (plus froid) ou plein soleil (plus blanc) ou en fin de journée au soleil (plus chaud). Sorry to reply in French, but I am unable to explain reasoning in English --Luc Viatour (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oui, d'accord. Si c'est une spécimen nouvelle, je ne pouvrais trouver des references. Pourtant une image très belle!  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Peux-tu eliminer la macule du capteur, s'il te plais? Comme Böhringer a dit plus haut. --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Voilà c'est corrigé --Luc Viatour (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Stunning picture, as usual. →Diti the penguin — 17:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very sharp photo and a good composition. I think although that the insect thorax seems to exhibit a flared highlight. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
• 鮮やかな色彩と奇抜ながらも調和のとれた構図を  Support -- Laitche (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  21:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Man On Mission (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support danke --Böhringer (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Incredibly sharp, lots of wow, amazing photography that we (as users of commons) should be proud to have as a featured picture. --Anonymous101 ^talk 17:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Leoboudv (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Winiar^✉ 09:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent shot. --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Estrilda (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support no question --Simonizer (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support: Very nice! I like how the simple composition works together with the subject. I would like Richard's edit even more. --Siebengang (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Mexican curious 01.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2009 at 15:56:55

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Really nice. A photo with a lot of details (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
•  Support colorful! - Man On Mission (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Tight Doctor Doom --12:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support As previous supporters. --Lošmi (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 16:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Question What's up with the EXIF data? --Dori - Talk 00:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know, what's up with it? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Tomás is using an old lens without exif throughput. Lycaon (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah OK, thanks. --Dori - Talk 13:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Lycaon is correct. Everything else registers in the EXIF data. The lens is a Carl Zeiss Planar T f1.4 manual focus lens. There are some jewels out there in the form of older manual focus lenses that produce beautiful results. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support nice colours --ianaré (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

 Support Bright, interesting and very high quality. Bravo! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This one is, IMO, the best of the two current noms. Nice colours. Lycaon (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:North Point Sunrise 20090201 0622.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2009 at 00:29:06

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 00:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sunrise over Lake Michigan, in North Point Park, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. --Dori - Talk 00:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support As proscribed sunrises or sunsets are, this one looks still fantastic --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support One of a kind --Muhammad 05:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support nice - Man On Mission (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 16:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Winiar^✉ 09:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support nice colours --Böhringer (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support for pillar--Mbz1 (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good--Kuvaly (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Estrilda (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Leoboudv (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Ok, I'll be the first to  Oppose here: The colors are very nice, but for me the composition is lacking something special (e.g. interesting foreground, strong and meaningful silhouettes, more interestingly shaped clouds...). Unfortunately the diagonal pattern of the clouds make the image somehow unbalanced. I know, sunrises/sunsets are pleasing and fun to photograph, but there are much better ones on Commons (File:Sunset_may_2006_panorama.jpg, File:Reflected_sunset.jpg). --Siebengang (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I know sunrises and sunsets look pretty similar, but both of your examples are sunsets. Indeed there are few quality sunrises on Commons. I believe I have the only FP one, and that one is not so much about the sunrise as the silhouettes. Note that I do have one with better clouds from that same shoot, but the colors aren't as good. I wish people would get up a bit early and take some better sunrise shots :) --Dori - Talk 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The other sunrise

 Comment: Wow, File:North Point Sunrise 20090201 1696.jpg has much more potential! It just looks a tiny bit too dark, but that could easily be fixed. Want to nominate it? --Siebengang (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose What Siebengang said. Crapload (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Absolutely fantastic! --AM (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry, too late.-)--Mywood (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ogata Gekko - Ryu sho ten.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2009 at 01:45:44

•  Info created by Ogata Gekko - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice, but not special enough. Crapload (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Santiago Martín (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Coyau (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Crapload. --Karel (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:ZuidasAmsterdamNederland.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2009 at 18:27:27

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna™ 20:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How about: Very sharp, almost no noise, great DOF, no CA and a pretty good composition. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true. But if I'll take a technically perfect photo from some usual thing, like from tissue, will it be FP? —kallerna™ 20:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose I somehow agree with —kallerna™. Even though the photo was definitely well taken, the composition does not catch much attention. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Technically perfect, composition OK, but no wow factor. Sorry. --Berru (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral--Kuvaly (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Kallerna, and just to make a point, not be taken personally, but rather as an illustration of critique and analogy... A technically perfect anything does not make it special necessarily... Like we say in spanish "a flower without aroma". It may be beautiful, but the aroma... ahhh that's what flowers are about! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• That's a great analogy Tomas, and fits this picture perfectly. It'll find a great home in Quality Images, but I have to  Oppose it here. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Tulipas.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2009 at 18:32:55

•  Info created , uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Question There's also other flowers? Species? —kallerna™ 20:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't fully understand what you mean with these questions. If you are referring to the Keukenhof park, the answer is: yes, there are other flowers of different families such as Orchids. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps kallerna means: what is the species of the yellow flowers in the foreground?--Commander Keane (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't really know what specie the yellow flowers belong to. I don't have any background on Botany. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Tulips - these are all tulips. Rmhermen (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose A lovely picture, but it seems rather fuzzy, especially around the edges of the yellow flowers. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose the white balance is a bit out. The picture looks yellowish to me. Amada44 (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Sarcastic ShockwaveLover. --Karel (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Tim Berners-Lee CP.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 02:49:47

•  Info created by Silvio Tanaka - uploaded by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton - nominated by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose, faled Flickr review. It's CC-BY-NC-2.0 at Flickr. Lupo 11:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems the license was changed... (or my eyes tricked me). It's CC-BY-2.0 now. Lupo 14:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Why do you oppose? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee he implemented the first successful communication between an HTTP client and server via the Internet w:Tim Berners-Lee. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:MetLIfe GC.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 05:40:55

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Jnn13 (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jnn13 (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral The shot cuts off part of the sign, and part of the building. Very sharp though, and the quality is excellent. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition could be better. —kallerna™ 13:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Comopsition, distorted lines. --Karel (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Tulips on Park Ave edit.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 06:03:37

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Jnn13 (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jnn13 (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- colorful picture but lack of sharpness - Man On Mission (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment -- Hmm, try looking at center yellow tulip at 100%. Shallow depth of field is deliberate here because it gives a relatively small patch of tulips a little more depth.

•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose because of compositional deficits: I think the uniformity of the flower pattern is the important point of the image, but then the tulip in the lower right and the soil patches are disturbing. --Siebengang (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Mostly because of the composition. —kallerna™ 23:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Roasted chickens.jpg, Not featured

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2009 at 00:30:04

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Uhm yeah, meanwhile food photography is very rare but roast chickens with overblown highlights and soberly composition ? Hmm, no. --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, if it is not to your liking it is ok, but overblown highlights? No my friend, they are called "specular highlights" in photography, caused by the quality of the surfaces that sometimes act as mirrors, such as chrome, water and other shiny surfaces. Furthermore, specular highlights are acceptable in photography. In this particular case they are neither exesive nor intrusive. The visual elements here have to do with color, texture, and yes, the sparkle. But like I said, if you no likey, you no likey. That's ok. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I stick to my opinion. The highlights are eroded 2 much. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like roasted chicken very much :P The photo is great in my opinion! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Richard Bartz. Could be quality-image. —kallerna™ 13:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral--Kuvaly (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Estrilda (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral It's kind of cramped, I would like it better if it were zoomed out to show more of the mechanics like the wheel on the right. I might change my mind and support it later, it's good image. --IG-64 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too dark. --Jagro (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose: The subject is kind of interesting, but I think the photograph does not live up to it (composition, oversaturation). Compared to many other FPs, the photographic quality is rather low. --Siebengang (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose While tihs picture does make me hungry, it's also too dark. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Richard Bartz, mainly composition. --Karel (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral =>  Not featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Guadalajara-01.jpg, Not featured

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 00:56:36

•  Info created by tetrabrain - uploaded and nominated by Jpablo cad (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jpablo cad (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose formerly FPX - the image does not meet size requirements. MER-C 01:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)}}

 Comment Also, one of the steeples is cut off, and the right hand side is blotchy and fuzzy. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Much 2 small --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As other opposers. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ... and size. —kallerna™ 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ... size. --Cayambe (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:CVN-69-SPIE-training.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 09:10:06

•  Info created by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Miguel Angel Contreras - uploaded by Durin - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Low quality navy pic with heavy CA. Lycaon (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's odd, I use it as the desktop on my newly adjusted 24 inch LCD, and I can honestly say I haven't noticed any chromatic abberation. Could you point it out? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • On the nose and on the stern. On some airplanes wings near the nose but not really salient --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      •  Question Is there anything that can be done about it? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support: Interesting! I think the quality is ok and I would not consider this as "heavy CA". --Siebengang (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wow! I can't support because of the quality (focus is on helmet) and because of that tire. —kallerna™ 14:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Usually I'm not too enthousiasdtic about all these U.S. military pix, buit this one gives me acute vertigo just by looking at it! -- MartinD (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong  Support. -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support-- Leon7 (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Winiar^✉ 09:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Might I have a reason? Is there something I can improve? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I took my time supporting this picture. Mixed feelngs. I support it because it is an informative image taken from a rare point of view. It shows the power packed on a carrier, true military might... Perhaps some may not agree with the topic, but that is besides the point, power is power, and the image conveys it. On the technical side, I would wipe out the antenna at the right of the man, for it seems to connect the helicopter to the ship and it is a dsitracting element. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info That's not an antenna...the the I in SPIE stands for 'Insertion', and the white line is a rope. If you look closely, you can see a man rappelling down to the ship. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Have to agree with MartinD. This one is impressive. --norro 14:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow!!! --Karel (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:CVN-69-SPIE-training.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 09:10:06

•  Info created by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Miguel Angel Contreras - uploaded by Durin - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Low quality navy pic with heavy CA. Lycaon (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's odd, I use it as the desktop on my newly adjusted 24 inch LCD, and I can honestly say I haven't noticed any chromatic abberation. Could you point it out? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • On the nose and on the stern. On some airplanes wings near the nose but not really salient --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      •  Question Is there anything that can be done about it? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support: Interesting! I think the quality is ok and I would not consider this as "heavy CA". --Siebengang (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wow! I can't support because of the quality (focus is on helmet) and because of that tire. —kallerna™ 14:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Usually I'm not too enthousiasdtic about all these U.S. military pix, buit this one gives me acute vertigo just by looking at it! -- MartinD (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong  Support. -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support-- Leon7 (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Winiar^✉ 09:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Might I have a reason? Is there something I can improve? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I took my time supporting this picture. Mixed feelngs. I support it because it is an informative image taken from a rare point of view. It shows the power packed on a carrier, true military might... Perhaps some may not agree with the topic, but that is besides the point, power is power, and the image conveys it. On the technical side, I would wipe out the antenna at the right of the man, for it seems to connect the helicopter to the ship and it is a dsitracting element. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info That's not an antenna...the the I in SPIE stands for 'Insertion', and the white line is a rope. If you look closely, you can see a man rappelling down to the ship. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Have to agree with MartinD. This one is impressive. --norro 14:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow!!! --Karel (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Lune1 (by).jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 19:30:06

•  Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Question The largest image sizes for Nikon Coolpix P5000 is 3648 x 2736 (10MP), why your image is 4,758 × 5,929 pixels ?   ■ MMXX^talk  09:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info It's a mosaic. --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think that, for balance, it really needs enough space to the left to represent the rest of the moon's disc, shrouded in darkness. Excellent work otherwise, but the layout just looks wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  08:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good image--Kuvaly (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

*  Support —kallerna™ 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC) (because of File:The Moon Luc Viatour.jpg). —kallerna™ 15:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• • La photo de Thomas Bresson a bien plus de résolution que la mienne.Mais c'est vrai qu'il y a une sensation de flou (manque de contraste et accentuation). --Luc Viatour (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just a moon image. It is not even sharp!! Crapload (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support FP JukoFF (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose: Not really sharp and the FP File:The Moon Luc Viatour.jpg is much better. --Siebengang (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Common image of Moon, nothing special. --Karel (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. ComputerHotline (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment To be featured with 4 "oppose", the picture must have at least 8 "supports" --S23678 (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Roasted chickens.jpg, Not featured

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2009 at 00:30:04

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Uhm yeah, meanwhile food photography is very rare but roast chickens with overblown highlights and soberly composition ? Hmm, no. --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, if it is not to your liking it is ok, but overblown highlights? No my friend, they are called "specular highlights" in photography, caused by the quality of the surfaces that sometimes act as mirrors, such as chrome, water and other shiny surfaces. Furthermore, specular highlights are acceptable in photography. In this particular case they are neither exesive nor intrusive. The visual elements here have to do with color, texture, and yes, the sparkle. But like I said, if you no likey, you no likey. That's ok. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I stick to my opinion. The highlights are eroded 2 much. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like roasted chicken very much :P The photo is great in my opinion! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Richard Bartz. Could be quality-image. —kallerna™ 13:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral--Kuvaly (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Estrilda (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral It's kind of cramped, I would like it better if it were zoomed out to show more of the mechanics like the wheel on the right. I might change my mind and support it later, it's good image. --IG-64 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too dark. --Jagro (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose: The subject is kind of interesting, but I think the photograph does not live up to it (composition, oversaturation). Compared to many other FPs, the photographic quality is rather low. --Siebengang (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose While tihs picture does make me hungry, it's also too dark. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Richard Bartz, mainly composition. --Karel (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral =>  Not featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Mexican curious 02.jpg, deleted

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2009 at 17:55:13

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Another great and colourful photo, a real credit to your skills, Sir. However, I prefer your first nomination, and so cannot support. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Sarcastic ShockwaveLover. —kallerna™ 23:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted => not featured. MER-C 11:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Guadalajara-01.jpg, Not featured

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 00:56:36

•  Info created by tetrabrain - uploaded and nominated by Jpablo cad (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jpablo cad (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose formerly FPX - the image does not meet size requirements. MER-C 01:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)}}

 Comment Also, one of the steeples is cut off, and the right hand side is blotchy and fuzzy. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Much 2 small --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As other opposers. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ... and size. —kallerna™ 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ... size. --Cayambe (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Crepuscular rays over the steam from hot spring.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 04:59:41

I hereby award you Mbz1 this very rare Crepuscular Rays Barnstar for 2 many great atmospheric optics pictures --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Info Here are few interesting things to notice. The color of hot springs is the result of pigmented w:bacteria in the microbial mats that grow around the edges of the mineral-rich water. While w:bacteria thrive in w:hot springs, the trees die there. There are few dead trees on the image. There are two sets of w:crepuscular rays. The most interesting one is the one that is coming upward from the w:hot spring. The light source for these rays is the Sun's reflection.
•  Info created, uploaded by and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support good composition, atmosphere well captured. --JY REHBY (discuter) 06:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct details and colors. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support encyclopaedic and stunning. I particularly enjoy the quality of the light capture. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great shot! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great shot! Amada44 (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting place. But the composition is weak for a FP, IMO. Crapload (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment - overexposure on top right. if you edit it, it'll be great! - Man On Mission (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. I don't get it. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose confusing composition. Lycaon (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose not a FP for me Gérard Janot (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 12 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Holmes Comet on 11-20-07 from san francisco.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 05:19:50

•  Info Comet Holmes is a very unusual comet. It is a w:periodic comet discovered by the British amateur astronomer w:Edwin Holmes on November 6, 1892. Although normally a very faint object, Holmes became notable during its 2007 return when it temporarily brightened by a factor of about half a million, in what was the largest known outburst by a comet, and became visible to the naked eye. At the image the comet is seen in constellation Perseus. The brightest star, which is next to the comet is Mirfak
•  Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose If you wouldn't say that the photo is of a comet, I wouldn't know where to draw my attention to in the first place. I mainly oppose due to lack of composition, but I could also point out some other issues such as sharpness and crushed black parts. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's little fuzzy. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral--Kuvaly (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ? Picture of tree? —kallerna™ 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose no "wow" - Man On Mission (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative 1, not featured

•  Info This image was taken few weeks after the first one. The comet was fading. The white things on the image are clouds. To take an image of a comet the time exposure should be used. Of course the small wind would move the trees, and the clouds, the rotating Earth could also make the things look a little fuzzy. The idea was to show not a telescopic view of the comet as it was seen from my light-polluted backyard.
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I still think it's not possible to identify that there is a comet (I was actually expecting to see a tail) in the photo. But I do like the composition of this photo. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This was a very special comet. The comet was visible for few months in a row, but the tail was seen only in very strong scopes and only for few days. This is because during the comet's outburst, its orbit took it to near opposition with respect to Earth, and since comet tails point away from the Sun, Earth observers were looking nearly straight down along the tail of 17/P Holmes, making the comet appear as a bright sphere, which was kind of cool. Maybe this comet did not look as a comet, but it did look as UFO --Tryitbot (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC) aka user:Mbz1

•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The story is interesting. The composition is much less interesting. Crapload (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Second that. Lycaon (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support FP JukoFF (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose not impressive enough - Man On Mission (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 5 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Orange Tulipas - Cropped out version.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2009 at 09:15:01

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info -- Cropped out version of the photo above -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC).
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Now quite small, still not identified and still overexposure in the red channel. Lycaon (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Again: white balance is out. its got a yellow haze over the image. Amada44 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 23:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Orange Tulipas.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 08:34:31

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - some may disagree with me, but I personally find the composition bland. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Extreme overexposure in the red channel. Lycaon (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I like the visual aspect, but prefer previous nom. In this one I would crop out the foreground flower, for IMO it unbalances the photo.... Since it is the entry into the image, it gives me a sense of a block, that it is, it blocks the visual flow. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with you. I tried several ways to overcome this foreground flower, but the composition gets affected when cropping it out :s Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Just crop it out... it works, I've seen it onscreen.... you have enough between the edge of the bottom flower and the next ones up... barely but enough... --201.140.16.159 02:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Again: white balance is out. its got a yellow haze over the image. Amada44 (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition, overexposure. —kallerna™ 23:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Viking treasure (Leiden).jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2009 at 06:06:28

•  Info created by M. Kuijjer - uploaded and nominated by Leoboudv -- Leoboudv (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Leoboudv (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Granted that it is a picture taken in a museum, still unfortunate lighting and DOF. Lycaon (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose absence light--Kuvaly (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 18:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose because of the lighting. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have to agree with the others about the lighting issue. I also think that there is a lack of sharpness due to that. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortunate lighting, OOF likely due to camera-shake. Museums should light their subjects better, especially since most do not allow the use of flash --Relic38 (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Serraselmus in SPB oceanarium.JPG, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Осенняя мгла -- (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info This is photo of serraselmius in SPb oceanarium.
•  Support -- Осенняя мгла (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose There is a weird reflection at the top of the photo. I would suggest you to crop that part out. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. —kallerna™ 16:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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 unsharp

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.

-- Crapload (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

result: uncontested FPX => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Papillon (by) (7).jpg, not featured

•  Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too harsh light, overexposed. --norro 16:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much light on the butterfly to my taste, pity. →Diti the penguin — 17:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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.

-- Crapload (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Lighting problem results from using flash and having (in too many cameras) not enough control over the results. Circumstances may have been against you, however, not to use flash. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

result: uncontested FPX => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Interior view of the Cologne Cathedral.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2009 at 23:01:40

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral A beautiful subject, but it's quite fuzzy, and seems rather overblown. The light sources, and the stained glass window suffer.Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Interesting photo with good composition, but almost out of focus. --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bad quality. —kallerna™ 14:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Out of focus. Light is not good due to tungsten and greenish tones.--Santiago Martín (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As per others, quality issues --S23678 (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - good composition, but lacking in quality with shifty focus. Lighting seems weird too. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 result: 1 support, 5 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Phoenix landing.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 14:39:46

•  Info created by NASA(Corby Waste) - uploaded by Bricktop - nominated by Kuvaly.--Kuvaly (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info An artist's rendition of the Phoenix Mars probe during landing.
•  Support --Kuvaly (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality of rendering is mediocre (shapes, texture, dust). Given that this is an image of NASA, who can probably do much better, I oppose. --norro 17:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with norro. Lycaon (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per norro. —kallerna™ 23:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lacks enough quality. --Santiago Martín (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Crescent Honeyeater Edit2.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 14:55:25

•  Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Kuvaly.--Kuvaly (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info A female Crescent Honeyeater (Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus).
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image does not meet the minimal size requirement.Lycaon (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Good quality, but small size --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment--This is today's FP on Wikipedia!! Jnn13 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Size is of course too small, Commons has different criteria from en.wikipedia. --Dori - Talk 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support While it will fail on the matter of resolution, being too small, this is a difficult subject (assuming photographed in the wild) and deserves to succeed on other criteria. My vote should be Neutral, but I have used Support to underline the point. The Cheetah, featured as Image Of The Day, did not meet minimum size requirement since it is only 1,9Mpx, while this subject, about cheetah's ear in size, is almost 1.2Mpx and generally in sharp focus (except the tail, which can be excused). -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • We've had this argument countless times before. This is not a rare shot, and I'm guessing it's downres-ed on purpose. When images are too small for FP they're too small for FP. --Dori - Talk 02:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Size. —kallerna™ 23:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Size and yellowish coloring Amada44 (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Of course its not going to pass on size grounds. This was the lucky shot (note 200mm) that ultimately got me into bird photography however. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi there! sorry for the rough and short comment. I haven't come round to doing wildlife photography much but I am sure, it is very rewarding! And the picture you did is not bad at all! really! Don't be upset if it wont get featured. Anyhow, I have just seen, that you do absolutely excellent pics which are also featured. So I am sure there will follow more *smile* BTW: Look what I did to the Image:Crescent_Honeyeater.jpg original image. I got rid of the yellowish color. Please revert if you dont like it! Amada44 (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I did revert it, see the description as to why (yellow cast was realistic in low winter sun). I am not fussed at all that this won't pass (If I cared I'd just upload the original or a less downsampled version). I have already got a few featured pictures here but chose not to nominate any further. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose due to size. I generally am OK with 1.9MP (i.e. 1600x1200) if the image is otherwise great, but this is way too far (almost 50%) below the limit --Relic38 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Calendula officinalis 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 15:16:41

•  Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Kuvaly -- Kuvaly (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice use of vanishing DoF. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support An interesting shot probably more about photography than about the flower.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct details and colors. --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support A great photo. The background was very well explored in this photo. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support With wow and cool efect.--Jagro (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not liking the light. --Dori - Talk 22:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing in really sharp focus. The "vanishing focus" (Tomascastelaxo) is a good idea, but it needs something more sharply in focus at some point. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as RoR. Lycaon (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like the light ;-) Amada44 (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Beautiful picture, but the background is posterized. -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Robert of Ramsor, nothing in really sharp focus. —kallerna™ 23:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The background looks like a 8 bit videogame :-) Colors are very nice--Richard Bartz (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Technically superb. Focus is not only fine, but beautiful too. Congratulations.--Santiago Martín (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Focus. --Karel (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support even it would be nice if the whole flower would be in focus it's a nice image --D-Kuru (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not enough DoF. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose nice colour, but I would have went for more DOF to get at least 1/2 of the flower sharp --Relic38 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry, too late.-)--Mywood (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Sunset turtles.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 15:22:57

•  Info Sunset sky reflects in the shallow w:tide pools in Kona, w:Hawaii. The "rocks" in foreground are actually not rocks, but Green turtles (Chelonia mydas). One of them got his head up to breath.
•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ??? Picture is tilted, turtles can as well be rocks as they are completely out of focus (I'm not doubting you here, Mila) and picture lacks wow. Lycaon (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Hans! I mean it. I've missed you opposing my images. I even thought that you are upset with me. :=) I'm glad we're back to normal. And yes, you are absolutely right, it is hard to say that the "rocks" are actually turtles. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per Lyacon. I actually think this would be better if it only focused on the turtles, and left the sunset out. --IG-64 (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Normal photo, nothing special. --Dezidor (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  So sunset with two green turtles in the foreground is normal? Are you serious? --norro 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong  Oppose. Blurry, rotation needed, overexposed --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition was not well explored. At the first sight, I thought the turtles were rocks. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose bad quality --Simonizer (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tilted, quality. —kallerna™ 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Lycaon. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per other opposers - Man On Mission (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Lock wp.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 17:43:51

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support An exercise of color, texture and contour -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's as if I could reach into the picture and feel the texture. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose no "wow" - Man On Mission (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Man On Mission. --Karel (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality, TC-topic and compo. Lycaon (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very good! But not enough wow. -- Crapload (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like the colors, the textures and the composition. --Tsui (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good quality, uninteresting composition --S23678 (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good image, but in contrast to other users i don't like the composition --High Contrast (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ferris Wheel at night.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 18:49:55

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info PS.: I uploaded a new version of this photo. I cropped out the leftmost part of the photo, which brings more details to the Ferris wheel. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not the best composition. --Dori - Talk 22:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I am having a hard time with this one.... it is either a bold composition or it has too much black on the left.... Either way, a graphic image... --201.140.16.159 02:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It would be better if the whole wheel was in the photo. —kallerna™ 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Crop /Daniel78 (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ack opposers. Crapload (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition - Man On Mission (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - lighting concerns that in turn relate to the composition. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lightning and specially composition. Very confusing image.--Santiago Martín (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Biograph poster2.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 20:38:47

•  Info created by Cleveland : A.B.C. Co. - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Biograph poster.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Poster for the 1913 film Three Friends directed by D. W. Griffith for Biograph Studios.
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I've always been a fan of this kind of posters. The photo is very sharp and the high resolution allows to see amazing details this poster has. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Absolutely love it!!! Commons needs a good collection of this art... as well as WWI, WWII art, russian constructivism, Bauhaus, etc., etc. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Lycaon (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Think I will do a print for my floor --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm considering to do the same :) It's a really great poster. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Cayambe (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Lucarelli (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:BambooJI1.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2009 at 10:22:43

•  Info created by Joi - uploaded by Joi - nominated by Kuvaly.--Kuvaly (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the species is not identified Lycaon (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice. Love the composition and the bokeh. --norro 12:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Please learn to stick to the guidelines, you keep setting bad examples/precedents for new users. An unidentified image of an organism is NOT eligible for FP, nor is an undersized image. Mitigation is for border cases not for flagrant flaunting of the guidelines. Lycaon (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment This is not an image of an organism. Its subject is light, line, and form, not literal encyclopedic presentation. There is no need to identify the organism. Fg2 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Ok. Take away the plant, then what's left? Lycaon (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Can you do it without taking away the light, line and form? The point is that the identity of the organism is only necessary if this photo is to be used in an encyclopedia or factual article about bamboo. A photograph can stand on its own as a concept or mood or abstract without being an encyclopedic illustration of a particular species of organism. In addition to abstract uses, it can form the background for text in a cover page for a Wiki book. It can become a poster. Photographs have many uses other than as encyclopedia illustrations. Fg2 (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

•  CommentThis is avoiding the issue that the main topic of this image is an unidentified bamboo. Lycaon (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 18:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support FP JukoFF (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose way too blue. -- carol (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great composition! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose For me the composition in not so excellent. --Karel (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Like it. I agree with Fg2. --Lošmi (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting mood, etc. Unsharp. Crapload (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition and it's little fuzzy. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Image does not fall within the guidelines, the species is not identified. --Santiago Martín (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice composition, however no encyclopedic value and bokeh in top-center is a bit disorganized --Relic38 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Moscow International Business Centre, Marc 2008.JPG, featured

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2009 at 20:43:24

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Some barrel distortion can be seen on the rightmost side of the picture (the white hub with round windows at the end of the bridge), but otherwise just fine and spectacular. --JY REHBY (discuter) 05:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very good photo, without noise. →Diti the penguin — 11:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support FP JukoFF (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nocturnal photos are always a challenge. So, thumbs up for this photo. I think although the buildings are rather dark. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 15:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dissident vote. I'm not too fond of the perspective: everything leans too much towards the middle of the picture for me. Lycaon (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support But agree with Tiago Fioreze about the buildings being a little dark. Made up for by composition. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Lycaon, I would support a perspective corrected version (which should be easy to correct) --S23678 (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Notyourbroom (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral, however I would support with the perspective corrected --Relic38 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose My vote won't change anything, but I think it's very dark, and I don't like the perspective either. Benh (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry, too late.--Mywood (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Bergen city centre and surroundings Panorama edited.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2009 at 10:23:54

•  Info created by Aqwis - uploaded by Aqwis - nominated by Aqwis -- Aqwis (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Aqwis (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, fantastic resolution, and I like the lighting, not only in the technical aspect but in the physical light and shade on the photograph. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support You could adjust colours. —kallerna™ 14:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Detail like I am there with binoculars, even to the far side of the lake. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Rather good (kudos for detail) despite some chroma noise in the shady parts. Lycaon (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support As Lycaon -- MJJR (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Leoboudv (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --S23678 (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Notyourbroom (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Mini Spot light.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2009 at 14:36:34

•  Info created by Santiago Martín - uploaded by Santiago Martín - nominated by Santiago Martín -- Santiago Martín (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Santiago Martín (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The photo was not taken from the best angle. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Angle has been chosen to clearly show the main inside and outside components (read image description).--Santiago Martín (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Neutral The whole spotlight isn't in the picture. —kallerna™ 14:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow, just common image of common thing. --Karel (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Don't agree on the wow-part, but the composition is quite confusing and the light a bit harsh. Lycaon (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Crop --S23678 (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral the light is excellent, composition could be better/more interesting Amada44 (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Kuznetsk Alatau 1.jpg featured

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2009 at 08:44:38

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Dmitry A. Mottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great shot! The composition brings a nice atmosphere of the place. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support as Tiago --Böhringer (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Colours are bit boring. —kallerna™ 14:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I agree, however, with Kallerna about the colours, but it is the time of year - unless you happen to get either brilliant sunshine or sunrise / sunset, we are lumbered with poorer colours. This picture is true to life, and shows the real colours of the bare trees. (An aside on colours, snow reflects the colour of the available light - just try some close-ups while wearing a high-visibility yellow jacket. Thus we can expect blue snow if under a strong blue sky.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree too, but this doesn't explain the red/magenta hue of the snow (not blue!). Lycaon (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose nothing special Gérard Janot (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting background, uninterresting foreground (right bottom corner mainly) --S23678 (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing special. --Karel (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

* Oppose As other opposers Benh (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC) *  Support as Tiago --Villa16 (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC) votes too late --Karel (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Manzushir Khiid 149194575 f9e5350702 o.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2009 at 20:51:23

•  Info created by yeowatzup - uploaded by Gryffindor - nominated by Gryffindor -- Gryffindor (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Gryffindor (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Depicted is a blue prayer shawl (khata) tied around a Buddhist stele, which is tradition in Mongolia. It is located at Manzushir Monastery. Gryffindor (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Neutral I gotta say that the composition is great, but there is a lack of sharpness in this photo. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral --Kuvaly (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy. —kallerna™ 14:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy, uninteresting lightning --S23678 (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pruszków stadion oswietlenie noc.jpg not featured

•  Info created by Proch - uploaded by Proch - nominated by Proch --Proch (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Proch (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wow! Cool photo, but couple problems. "The categories of this image should be checked.", only polish description and noisy. —kallerna™ 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done (without noise) Albertus teolog (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral--Kuvaly (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Albertus teolog (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 05:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very interesting scene from the lightning in the fog, however, 1 of the tower is all overexposed. Could have been mitigated with HDR or Enfuse. --S23678 (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured.  --Karel (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Lateral view of the Riga Nativity of Christ Orthodox Cathedral.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2009 at 19:16:28

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral  Support: I really like the image, just the sky looks too noisy for a support at the moment (I don't mean the JPEG artifacts in the preview images). Maybe you could do some luminance noise reduction on the original file? --Siebengang (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've done the luminance noise reduction and uploaded a new version of the photo. I think it looks better now. I appreciate your observation. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like the "star-burst" of the sun on the gold ribs of the dome. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - This is one of those cases where geometric distortion doesn't add to the picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. MER-C 01:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I actually like the converging parallels here, because it makes the building look even more "compact", which I think the architectural style. --Siebengang (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Alvesgaspar. Also noise reduction should've been sky only. You lost too many details now. Lycaon (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question Could you point me out where there has been loss of detail? The details look fine to me. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Leon7 (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I do not like the composition. --Karel (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Somehow I hate it, somehow I like it. —kallerna™ 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose same reason like Karel --Chmee2 (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 05:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, x neutral => not featured.  --Karel (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Blanko in winter 3.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2009 at 07:07:57

•  Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Chmee2 -- Chmee2 (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very good image--Kuvaly (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral It's a beautiful photo. However, the clouds present some disturbing noise. Could you try to reduce that? Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Messy bottom. Crapload (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Disturbing composition, noisy. —kallerna™ 16:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support great atmosphere --Simonizer (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct exposure. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Don't like foreground. Also big chromatic aberrations, You can try to reduce it with RAW converter --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose, I agree with Dmottl. --Aqwis (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 05:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured.  --Karel (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

File:West Bromwich Holy Trinity Church reredos 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2009 at 22:21:21

•  Info created by Robert of Ramsor - uploaded by Robert of Ramsor - nominated by Robert of Ramsor -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  SupportThere are millions of these around the world, but this one is a little unusual in having Judas on the other side of the table. This reredos was part of the monuments installed as war memorials for the 1914-1919 Great War. Metadata lost in tidying includes f13; 4 seconds; natural lighting; ISO100. They have lighting for this, but it creates a double shadow which looks very disconcerting on a photo. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral--Kuvaly (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortunate crop/composition. Lycaon (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Robert of Ramsor, the staining glasses at the upper part results in a disrupting composition in your photo. I would suggest that you would crop that part out and focus more on the Sacred Supper representation. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per other opposers. —kallerna™ 16:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 3 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Version 2

Originally I left the stained glass window as providing some colour for comparison with the sandstone. I have followed Tiago's suggestion as it is in line with what I originally aimed at. Except that I have left in a little bit of the carved stonework above and below in the interests of keeping a little bit of height-to-width. This also allowed me the luxury of a little more contrast without risking burnt-out window colours. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Livorno Panorama.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2009 at 08:18:05

•  Info created by Lucarelli - uploaded by Lucarelli - nominated by Lucarelli -- Lucarelli (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lucarelli (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive quality. --Lošmi (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Lacks a bit of wow, but has plenty of detail and stitching was done very well. Lycaon (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, very good work. Alchemica (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support There is a bit of haze at the furthest part of the photo, but I don't know if that's solvable. It's a great panoramic photo, though. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The same issue as with many panoramas. Boring. -- Crapload (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Same thing could be said from all pictures, regardless of the format. --S23678 (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 16:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment, I'm currently getting "this picture contains errors" when trying to open this picture. --Aqwis (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too distant from the subject (composition-wise, not physical distance). The city could be used as a good background, not as the main subject from this perspective. --S23678 (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition, too flat, no wow at all. --Karel (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing really wrong, but I don't find the view interesting. Benh (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured.  --Karel (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pisaura mirabilis on Plantago lanceolata.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2009 at 15:16:01

•  Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Nursery web spider (Pisaura mirabilis). She is resting on Ribwort Plantain (Plantago lanceolata)
•  Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Lycaon (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  15:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemica (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral My neutrality comes from the fact that there is too much going on in this photo. It's not easy to see where some parts of spider end and where some parts of the plant start. Look at, for instance, the spider's fang, which seems to "mix" with the small leaves and branches of the plant. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about fangs and camouflage is moved to --> here --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lucarelli (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Super duper Support Good DOF, quality, background. --Muhammad 06:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support what else --AngMoKio (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support superbe!!! --Luc Viatour (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 16:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sharp where it should be and informative. --Tsui (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good use of DOF with background. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ste-Anne church in Dijon-Garden view.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2009 at 16:08:57

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Alchemica -- Alchemica (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alchemica (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I just don't see it as FP candidate. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Nice atmosphere. Could you crop that shade out of the photo? —kallerna™ 16:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Yep, I didn't notice it before rotating the picture, but this shadow doesn't look very nice. Good idea. Alchemica (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 14:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tilt and quality; I expect good quality at maximum resolution from a 3MPX picture. --S23678 (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Tiago Fiorenze. --Karel (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

File:SM3 from JDS Kongo.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2009 at 10:15:52

•  Info created by U.S. Navy - uploaded by Killkatayama - nominated by ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not too keen on poor quality war propaganda. Lycaon (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question How on earth is that Propaganda? Certainly, it's a military picture, but it's a beautiful shot. Can I have some constructive feedback on how to improve my submissions? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Less violence/threat ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer images of military equipment to be strictly factual, no lighting, background, composition and perspective that tries to make an aesthetic impression - which is a sign of propaganda. --Tsui (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment Aren't those the hallmarks of Featured Pictures though? The picture you describe seems more suited for Valued or Quality Images. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Lycaon. Showing a lethal weapon with cool fire and lighting effects is nothing I want to see or be featured. --norro 15:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Bad quality, but wow! Awesome! There's also other great pictures of same missile. —kallerna™ 16:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral It must be hard to photography something moving very fast. →Diti the penguin — 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose for blown whites, but specifically not for political reasons. Durova (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Lycaon --AngMoKio (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. Wow -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose to quote a statement from above: I'm not too keen on poor quality war propaganda --Tsui (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment About propaganda... I think this type of image could be used for anti-war purposes as much as government propaganda. The inhumane environment (fire, steel, rockets) killing humans hundreds of kilometers away, the easy comparaison between state-of-the-art, multi-million dollars technology fighting against illiterate and poor guerrilla fighters, with what seems to be the sun obscured by smoke (it's not the sun, but looks like it) can be a dystopic interpretation of this image used by anti-war groups as much as it can be a interpreted as a demonstration of power from the government. My opinion, very subjective. --S23678 (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support wow included. also good comment by S23678. --Jklamo (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral As Diti the penguin — Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Santiago Martín (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with S23678's comment above-- this photograph may be viewed through multiple different sociopolitical lenses. Notyourbroom (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Lycaon is right

result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

File:TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel.png, delisted

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 23:20:22

Current FP — 1,600 × 1,200

Proposed replacement — 2,650 × 2,010

•  Info This recently got voted as featured, despite being under 2MPx. A higher resolution version was just added by the author, so I'd like to nominate it for "delist and replace" with the higher resolution version. (Original nomination)
•  Delist and Replace-- JalalV (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist I agree with the given reasons. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist and Replace-- Lycaon (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist and Replace —kallerna™ 14:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist I'm also in favor of that. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
•  Delist The highres version is much better --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist and replace per above. →Diti the penguin — 16:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist --Kuvaly (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Crapload (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Thunderbolt II 080325.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2009 at 10:20:35

•  Info created by Brad White, US Air Force - uploaded by El torero - nominated by ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  SupportGreat image!--Kuvaly (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality isn't that good. Same thing with composition. —kallerna™ 16:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Good photo, but a bit of chromatic aberration, moreover I personally wouldn't print such a picture. →Diti the penguin — 18:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The man is cut by the wing. And the image tries to be rather aesthetic (perspective, clouds) than factual - in this military context a sign of advertisment/propaganda. --Tsui (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question What sort of propaganda value is a crashed plane? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It is crashed? At least to me that is not obvious (the information is "hidden" in the exif-data, now I found it). It looks like just one more picture or military equipment (a discussion about the propaganda value of such images would go beyond the scope of this page). --Tsui (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I've created a section on the talk age for it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Mainly composition! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Again rather poor quality (e.g. CA) for the expensive sponsored hardware. Lycaon (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured.  --Karel (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Cornell Baseball2.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2009 at 19:14:25

•  Info created by Edward Penfield - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Cornell Baseball.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose nice painting, but nothing special --Andreas 06 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 11:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like the style of this drawing. --Lošmi (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing outstanding. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Santiago Martín (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not very special. Lycaon (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Notyourbroom (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose missing feet for quality/featured pic. --Diligent (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Lycaon. --Karel (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as others --ianaré (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Limmatquai at nighttime.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2009 at 16:59:46

Original version

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality (check out the sky). —kallerna™ 20:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Blurry --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The scene has very good potential. However, the picture suffers from some quality issues. First, try to adjust manually the white balance. Here, we have a yellow-ish result. After, you have some details completly washed out by overexposition. If the DR is too wide, you can get more details from shooting RAW, or take multiple exposures pictures, and assemble them with HDR or Enfuse. Finally, the focus seems to be on the water rather than on the buildings. --S23678 (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have uploaded a new version of this photo (the one on the right side). I believe that I have attended most of the comments from you, guys. I really appreciated, btw. Since I don't have the RAW format for this image, I had some limitation in the range of changes that I could apply on it. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Edited version

•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose seems worse than original version. --staka.^talk 20:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Garrulus glandarius 1 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2009 at 19:40:17

•  Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Do I need to motivate my vote? :) →Diti the penguin — 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support lovely. Durova (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Nice, but not interesting enough. The head and tail are out of focus. Crapload (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Difficult subject. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Agree with Crapload. —kallerna™ 15:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Leoboudv (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good composition, but head is OOF and the highlights are blown (wing, top of head) --Relic38 (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Hayfield in fall.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2009 at 03:53:03

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by bdesham --bdesham ★ 03:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I find the colors in this photo to be simply beautiful. --bdesham ★ 03:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality isn't that good. Same thing with composition, bit boring. That roof is disturbing. —kallerna™ 15:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose why featured ? Gérard Janot (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Mixed feelings! From one side, the landscape looks nice, but from another side, there is one "wow"! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. --Santiago Martín (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Different light conditions could make the colours from the leaves standing out more --S23678 (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Russian museam.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2009 at 21:04:01

This is a photo a Russian museam in Saint-Petersburg, Russia, in the early evening.

•  Info created by Осенняя Мгла - uploaded by Осенняя Мгла - nominated by Осенняя Мгла -- Осенняя мгла (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• A user Canopuspuppet - this is I am.
• Сonfirm this. CanopusPuppet (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Осенняя мгла (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy. —kallerna™ 14:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition (e.g., the tree branches at the top left right are disturbing). Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition (missing left of the building), foreground (the barrier is hidding the subject) and tilt. --S23678 (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Cantharis livida.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2009 at 21:08:32

•  Info created, uploaded & nominated by Richard Bartz (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Soldier beetle (Cantharis livida)
•  Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great shot! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Exif? --Muhammad 03:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Added --Richard Bartz (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Dates don't match ;) --Muhammad 19:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 14:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Not as good as your other pictures, bright background slightly distracting, but still one of the finest macro pictures nonetheless --Muhammad 19:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good photo. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Santiago Martín (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, decent enough. --Aqwis (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --D-Kuru (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Relic38 (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Benh (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Hoodos BC 01.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2009 at 21:18:13

•  Info created by Clear - uploaded by Clear - nominated by Clear -- Clear (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Clear (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Color and composition --S23678 (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Question: what did you not like about color? Clear (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's from the subject itself, the color is not attractive, I don't get a wow from it. For me it looks like a typical casual shot from a trip. Subjective reason. --S23678 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. -- Clear (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Composition and light. --S. Martín (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. —kallerna™ 18:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Gatto europeo4.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2009 at 16:51:42

•  Info created by Imm808 - uploaded by Imm808 - nominated by Matasg -- Matasg ^talk 16:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Matasg ^talk 16:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ordinary picture, noisy, blurry --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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.

-- Crapload (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Noisy. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Starscream (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC) The cat as many other.

File:Tour Eiffel 22.JPG

•  Info created by Fabmao (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Fabmao (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's a picture of the Eiffel Tower lit up at night (i.e. a copyvio)... MER-C 12:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

•  Oppose --Starscream (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC) The object cut off. The crooked photo.

File:Pig in Tierpark of Merseburg 003.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2009 at 22:50:35

•  Info created by Sundance Raphael (talk) - uploaded by Sundance Raphael (talk) - nominated by Sundance Raphael (talk) -- Sundance Raphael (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sundance Raphael (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose out of focus. --staka.^talk 01:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Lycaon (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose --Starscream (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Unsightly.

File:Caracara takes off at Machu Picchu.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 19:05:31

•  Info created by Ville Miettinen - uploaded by Flamurai - nominated by Digary -- Digary¿Yanapa? 19:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info A mountain caracara (Phalcoboenus megalopterus) taking off at Machu Picchu, Peru. October 2007.
•  Support -- Digary¿Yanapa? 19:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Miusia (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Very nice and dramatic picture and lightning. Some vignetting, but... upscaling the image 14.5 times its original size was the worst idea that could have been made. Sting (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Upsacaling ? Whatever gave you that idea? --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Right. I was put in mistake by the first version of the upload (1024px size, which I like much more). Whatever, it doesn't seem to be its original size (max 3,872 x 2,592 px caption) and the HDR processing made a mess. Sting (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noise. --S. Martín (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

. Lycaon (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Caracara takes off at Machu Picchu-original.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2009 at 18:38:29

•  Info created by Ville Miettinen - uploaded by Flamurai - nominated by Digary -- Digary¿Yanapa? 19:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info A mountain caracara (Phalcoboenus megalopterus) taking off at Machu Picchu, Peru. October 2007. Original size.
•  Support --Digary¿Yanapa? 18:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

—kallerna™ 18:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Bison bonasus right eye close-up.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2009 at 16:35:46

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Out of focus. --S. Martín (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose out of focus and it's so fuzzy, noisy. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too dark --Jagro (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per ComputerHotline. —kallerna™ 19:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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.

→Diti the penguin — 21:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Billet STIB.svg, not featured

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2009 at 15:56:17

•  Info created by Vascer - uploaded by Vascer - nominated by Vascer -- Vascer (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Vascer (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Question What happened to the Nederlandse tekst? Lycaon (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Because it's used in fr:Métro_de_Bruxelles#Abonnement_et_billet I would say it's a metro ticket. This image doesn't look ineligible for copyright to me. Even it's (maybe) selfmade it's a derivative work and should may be deleted. --D-Kuru (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 0 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Peregrin hawk mexico.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2009 at 18:03:38

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral I can't quite support this as-is. The blues of the sky are noisy and my eyes are pulled harder to the top-right of the image than they should be. The composition might be improved by some cropping.
•  Oppose Noisy, long distance to object, partially overexposed sky --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The back of the hawk is too dark, it looks like an owl for me. →Diti the penguin — 19:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's a gorgeous picture, but it needs a crop. I'll have a go, and see what I can do. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 3 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative

 Info A 2100x1500 version of the above, with the Hawk centred.

•  Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose both versions. lighting is too harsh --ianaré (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Better than this, but still low quality. —kallerna™ 19:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Gdańsk Długi Targ nocą.jpg, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Sfu (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition, light, chromatic aberration. --S. Martín (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as above. --staka.^talk 20:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose + ghosts. —kallerna™ 19:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 0 support, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Streets of Riga.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2009 at 22:45:09

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy →Diti the penguin — 23:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very noisy. Peipei (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy. —kallerna™ 19:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing extra. --Karel (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Great Wall at Simatai overlooking gorge.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 05:34:15

•  Info created by, uploaded by, and nominated by Notyourbroom -- Notyourbroom (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Notyourbroom (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much going on in the foreground for my taste --norro 07:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Very Regretful  Oppose. I wish with all my heart that I could support, as it's an amazing image, and a credit to you, Sir. But, I'm afraid the trees just interfere too much. Is a re-shoot possible? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info Thank you for the comments. Unfortunately, no, a re-shoot would not be possible, as I live on the other side of the globe. :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Odd composition. —kallerna™ 19:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too bad there's those branches in front. --S23678 (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Roadside shrines sonora.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 06:00:25

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral -- leaning towards support, the only issue I have is the bottom right cornor where there is a semi circle of white stones I think it would enhance to crop these out. Gnangarra 14:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna™ 19:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing special --S23678 (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Kazakhstan Altay 3.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2009 at 12:26:57

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Could you reduce noise from sky? —kallerna™ 14:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice landscape! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JB aus Siegen (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --S. Martín (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not impressive enough; the composition is too busy with details for my taste. Crapload (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Exactly as Crapload above. Nice, but not impressive enough. --Martin Kozák (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Jerusalem panorama early twentieth century2.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2009 at 04:27:49

•  Info created by American Colony (Jerusalem) - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Jake Wartenberg and Durova. Restored from File:Jerusalem panorama early twentieth century.jpg by Jake Wartenberg and Durova. — Jake Wartenberg 04:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support — Jake Wartenberg 04:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support GerardM (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support (In spite of the limitations of the original.) This is historically important, and shgould also be on Valued Images. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose lack of wow and contrast. Lycaon (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Lycaon. --Karel (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Karel. —kallerna™ 18:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Cocacola-5cents-1900 edit1.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2009 at 18:05:22

•  Info created by Hilda Clark - uploaded by Victorrocha - nominated by --190.31.24.146 18:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC) -- 190.31.24.146 18:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I'll agree with the Spaniards here. This is great. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Econt (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  11:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 05:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question Does anyone know what are those little crosses - under the girls chest, on the top of her hat, and on Coca-Cola amblem? --Lošmi (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe they're something to do with aligning the layers during the reproduction process. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, I taught that too, but they are usually (always?) printed outside of the picture, and cut out. Maybe it was different 100 years ago... --Lošmi (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Usually, but, well, if NASA can do it on Moon photos, I guess Coca-Cola can do it here. It has extremely good colouring for 1900 - most colour printing from that era is a lot more garish, or, at least, a lot less subtle. Maybe this made it more difficult, and so more crosses were needed? Who knows! Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Yes, now that you mentioned, I remember that I saw them on Moon exploration pictures. I assumed that it has something with taking pictures in outer space. Assuming, of course, that it actually happened :) --Lošmi (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Forgot to do this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --S. Martín (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The crosses bother me. Lycaon (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral I like it, but the crosses aren't that great. —kallerna™ 18:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Luna - Keele - 09.12.08.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2009 at 19:40:00

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Colds7ream (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colds7ream (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lack of originality. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poorly edited. There are rectangular areas with different brightness and croping around the perimeter results obvious and very poorly done. Can you improve it?--Santiago Martín (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomination closed by nominator.

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Wassilij Grigorjewitsch Perow 004.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2009 at 21:02:49

•  Info created by Perov, Vassiliy Grigor'evitch - uploaded by Butko - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. Great work of a great artist. --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sharp photo of an interesting painting. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Santiago Martín (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -Notyourbroom (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - though the information page really needs cleaned up and brought into line. It lacks, for instance, anything that's definitely the name for the painting (though there may be one in Russian hidden right at the bottom.) Applying the {{Information}} template would help a lot. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Add the {{Information}}-template and I will support. —kallerna™ 18:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Cracked Mushroom.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 16:03:12

•  Info created by IG-64 - uploaded by IG-64 - nominated by IG-64 -- IG-64 (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- IG-64 (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral--Kuvaly (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Support--Kuvaly (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Could you explain why you voted neutral? Is it something that can be fixed without retaking the shot? Thanks. --IG-64 (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Question If it is a composition of 16 pictures, then why is the image so small? A single shot of your camera is 5Mpx, the result is ... 5Mpx! Lycaon (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's not a panorama, it was composited for depth of field. Look at the animation under "other versions" to see all 14 images I used. They ended up being lined up perfectly, so I didn't have to change the size of the image. --IG-64 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • OK ;-) Thanks for the info. Lycaon (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question Why you don't simply set f/22 for large DOF? --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The colors are rather dull, and background not the best. --Dori - Talk 22:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose because I prefer two other versions. -- Clear (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Agree with author. Best atmosphere on this one. --Lošmi (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Colour Correction

•  Neutral colors are a bit dull. I uploaded a color corrected version. Amada44 (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That looks even better.  Support.--Avala (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Even better. The quality is great. —kallerna™ 23:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the help, Amada. I never know how to color correct it right, I always feel like I'm overdoing it. Personally, I like the original better for the atmosphere, but I guess this one shows off the subject better. You really brought out the colors in it. --IG-64 (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Hi there! Yes, I can understand, that you like the mood of the uncorrected version! I've been working to much on sale flyers where I needed to punch out the subject ;-) But what you can do: donwnload both of the images and blend them like 50/50 or 30/70 so you can keep the mood but still have a bit more color! Amada44 (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Good idea! I went with 60/40, it looked the best. --IG-64 (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Clear (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Kozák (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Third Version

•  Support I like this version the best. Only thing is that I forgot to change the upload file name. I hope that won't be a problem? --IG-64 (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Even better. —kallerna™ 15:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Clear (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info I bumped the nomination to get opinions on alternative versions. -- Clear (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I was wondering if that was possible. --IG-64 (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --norro 15:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The best of both worlds. Dark enough, but it doesn't overdo it. Well done. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Khafre.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2009 at 03:40:58

•  Info created and uploaded by Than217 - - nominated by Leoboudv -- Leoboudv (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Leoboudv (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose A rather hazy. Besides, the composition should have been better explored. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wonderful image of a timeless monument. --Korman (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortunate composition. Lycaon (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with opposers. --norro 14:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. —kallerna™ 18:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition --Doucus (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ardea cinerea Luc Viatour.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2009 at 10:42:54

•  Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  11:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice work, I like the light. --Dori - Talk 14:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral I like the photo, and I also think it's rather difficult to capture a flying bird in a photo. So, my thumbs up for that. However, the photo is rather noisy... you can clearly see that under the bird's wings. Besides, the background should also have been explored better, since it doesn't bring me any clue where the bird was flying. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It is indeed a bit noisy, but I can accept that, because it´s such a nice capture. --norro 14:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Changing the gamma to about 1.6 brings up detail in the background and the underside of the far wing. Tiago has rightly noted some technical problems. And overall it is not that sharp. But I think this, ideally with some image processing, should be supported as a reasonable image of an almost impossible subject. "Almost impossible" - to get as well composed and focussed at this range. So can you supply, please, an alternative with some subtly image processing? -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Désolé de répondre en français: mais éclaircir l'image c'est aussi faire ressortir le bruit iso. Cette image est faite à 1000 iso pour avoir une vitesse suffisante. De plus éclaircir le fond ne va rien apporter, c'est flou car en dehors de la profondeur de champ. Le fond sombre fait aussi ressortir l'oiseau plus clair.--Luc Viatour (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Leon7 (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Je suis bien content de vous rendre Support. En demandant si on peut éclaircir l'image, c'etait en réponse a Tiago. Avec un tel sujet, un image aussi bon que le votre est presque impossible. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Ok, could be technically better. —kallerna™ 18:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Child laborer.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2009 at 11:51:43

•  Info created by Lewis Hine - uploaded by Shauni, higher resolution uploaded, nominated and minor edits by Jklamo -- Jklamo (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jklamo (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral This is a tough decision. The composition is fantastic, which righteously depicts what child laborer was (is). However, technically speaking, the girl's face is rather out of focus, which refrains me to fully support this photo. I think although this photo would fit well in the Valued Image track. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral I think it should be edited first. The dustspots and scratches could easily be fixed. --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Santiago Martín (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Clear (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support great --Luc Viatour (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Notyourbroom (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Leon7 (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 18:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Luxembourg Grand Ducal Palace 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2009 at 15:12:57

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cayambe (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cayambe (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment -- Big CA. Can you reduce it? --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I have reduced the CA. --Cayambe (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Notyourbroom (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great atmosphere. —kallerna™ 18:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition, even the top of the first tower is cutted. Everybody would like to see the complete front of the building. MatthiasKabel (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

* Oppose As per MatthiasKabel. --PieCam (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC) after close -- Colin (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Stenocereus thurberi sonora.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2009 at 04:42:09

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Clear (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Please categorize and if possible add geolocation. Lycaon (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment done... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question Precisely what is it about the compostion that irks you so? 203.35.135.133 10:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Geolocation would be nice. —kallerna™ 18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As per Karel. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Avala (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Great wall child.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2009 at 07:01:47

•  Info created by Notyourbroom - uploaded by Notyourbroom - nominated by Notyourbroom -- Notyourbroom (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Notyourbroom (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• {{FPX|the image is below size requirements and lacks parental consent.}} Lycaon (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question Thank you for your comments. To your first concern: I realized that I had indeed not uploaded the full-resolution version, so I dug up the original file of higher resolution. To your second concern: I am unfamiliar with any policies regarding the use of human subjects in featured picture candidates, but I have of course tagged the image with the personality rights warning template, and furthermore, the image was taken in a very public place. I am a new contributor to Wikimedia Commons, so I would greatly appreciate any commentary or guidance you may be able to provide on this point of concern. Thank you! Notyourbroom (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment FPX in no longer applicable as size has been corrected, still pictures of minors preferably need parental consent, whether FP candidate or not and whether in a public place or not, though Personal Rights template might be sufficient (hence also the removal of the FPX). Lycaon (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Uninteresting: I know this is the Great Wall because of the title. Light and composition are not especially remarkable either. --S. Martín (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. Very interesting serious face of a child. -- AKA MBG (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as S. Martín. --staka.^talk 20:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Santiago Martín. —kallerna™ 18:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Prague Castle Guard - winter.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2009 at 12:00:37

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The splashes of color are vivid, the focus is sharp, and the texture of the wall stands out, but this image feels too unbalanced and unsettled to me. The guard's booth sits near the center of the image but a little bit to the left, while the guard's head sits near the center of the booth but a little bit to the right, and the slope of the ground causes further confusion. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - if for no other reason than the image is unremarkable and frankly uninteresting. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose —kallerna™ 18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Tres amigos.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2009 at 17:56:52

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Three friends waiting for breakfast in San Carlos, Sonora, Mexico... -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The composition is solid and the sharp textures of the birds and their perch is nicely offset by the softness of the background. I also like the dashes of red clustered in the top half of the image offset by the splashes of white in the bottom half, with the seagull bridging the two areas. With that said, the frontmost pelican appears to be slightly out of focus, so I give support with some reservation. -Notyourbroom (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Umnik (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  21:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. --Lošmi (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Please check id of the gull, it is NOT a Larus occidentalis. Lycaon (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info possibly Heermann's Gull !? bamse (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • That's more likely, thanks. And now for the pelican ;-), which is NOT a Pelicanus crispus. Lycaon (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Well... they are birds at least... feel free to correct description... I am not a birdologist... ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
        • That would be the occidentalis ;-), winter plumage I guess. bamse (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Thanks Bamse... changed description on both... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Still have to oppose, not for id (anymore) and not for composition, but for unfortunate DOF. The two pelicans are OOF while the gull is (looks) oversharpened. Lycaon (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Distracting background. —kallerna™ 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Background. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Tres amigos, such a great idea! Samulili (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Intersting, but the background spoils it. Crapload (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, too late. -)--Mywood (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Hummingbird Calypte anna in ggp 15n.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2009 at 06:07:44

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unsharp, almost appears as if it was upsampled. --Relic38 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It was not upsampled.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Info The size of the bird is 9-10 cm (3.5"-4").--Mbz1 (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Combination background color with bird in foregound does not look good. --Karel (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Karel. Lycaon (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Looks good to me. —kallerna™ 19:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice thumbnail, but full resolution is too unsharp. Looks like a combination of inadequate DOF and camera shake to me. --Specious (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Couple-lib-r-8 (by).jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 8:57

•  Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good find --Muhammad 20:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --R. Engelhardt (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality is not there, especially compared to current standard of Odonata FPs an e.g. the nomination a few places above. Lycaon (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's actually a good picture but i'am afraid it's lacking quality and composition. It should at least be adequate like this current FP which is sharper, has better lighting and a better composition (which shows the mating much better) . --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Light, composition and background. --S. Martín (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --staka.^talk 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Better description needed. —kallerna™ 19:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As per Richard Bartz. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pitaya sonora.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 15:39:13

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! --Lošmi (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting image!--Mbz1 (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support looks good from far and close up. --ianaré (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting. —kallerna™ 19:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent DOF usage. --S23678 (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Rice & Barton's Big Gaiety Spectacular Extravaganza Co. - Gaiety Dancers.png, not featured

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 16:37:50

•  Info created by The Courier Company, Lith. Dpt., Buffalo, N.Y - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great work, Adam!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support oddly psychedelic --ianaré (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Blurry, whether historically, restaurationally or any other reason. Lycaon (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --R. Engelhardt (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Karel (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose —kallerna™ 19:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As per other opposers. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Sympetrum striolatum 3(loz).jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 17:53:08

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Loz -- Loz (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Loz (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good. f/number 63 or 6.3 ;) --Muhammad 20:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Peripitus (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Proper stuff. Lycaon (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - S. Martín (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --staka.^talk 20:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 19:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very well. --Martin Kozák (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Doucus (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured.

File:Butterfly portrait.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 18:09:44

•  Info A good quality picture of a view of a butterfly rarely photographed. I know the antennas are cut-off but The purpose of the image is to show the eyes and the proboscis. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 18:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Muhammad 18:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support That was exactly my taught, before I read your description. Unusual, but/and I like it. --Lošmi (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Maybe 5% of the photo is on focus, not interesting. —kallerna™ 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ack kallerna. Not even a half of the eye is in focus. Crapload (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As per other opposers. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose not quite FP -- Dcubillas (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Citrus Swallowtail Papilio demodocus.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 20:22:42

•  Info Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 20:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Muhammad 20:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very, very nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --AngMoKio (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I do not feel like every technically correct macro shot should be featured. I get no wow here. Even technically, this is not exactly a perfect shot. The light is flat. The bottom of the wing is out of focus. Guessing that the image was downsampled to barely pass 2 MP bar (it is 2.18 MP), the original would have even more blur there. Muhammad Mahdi Karim is an excellent contributor with so many macros of insects uploaded, and should be recognized. I just do not think this particular picture should be featured. Crapload (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with Crapload... Just nice. Nice enough. —kallerna™ 19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Fully agree with Crapload. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree in each case too. Martin Kozák (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose is this image the "cream of the crop at Commons" and with "both extraordinary value and technical quality"? I dont think so... perhaps it should be nominated as a "Quality Image" instead. -- Dcubillas (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So many people cant be wrong. Its value can be demonstrated by the number of projects its being used in. Its quality is IMO, great. If you think quality is not perfect, perhaps you should pick your camera and show us an example. --Muhammad 04:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Landing egret in GGP.jpg, withdrawn

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 21:39:22

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice action shot, with wood texture, contour... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support  Oppose per S23678 --Dmitry A. Mottl --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --79.144.140.172 07:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Please log in to vote. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. --S. Martín (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Great moment, but technically weak image. The contrast is too high, some highlights seem to be overexposed, much of the image is not really sharp and resolution (I do not mean pixel count) is not very high either. -- Crapload (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Crapload. —kallerna™ 19:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Crapload. Lycaon (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Big chuncks of the background has been completly removed and is pure black. . --S23678 (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So what?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

 and please take your image off the nomination. I really do not like it.Thanks.

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (withdrawn). --Karel (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Amanita muscaria tyndrum.jpg, delisted

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2009 at 14:40:36

•  Info Reason to delist: Quality, especially illumination is low. The flash fired straight onto the mushroom burning out the whites and leaves the backgrund dull. I think, that featured images should have better quality!

•  Delist -- Amada44 (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep There's nothing bad with this picture. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist Considerable areas of the mushroom are overexposed to the point details are completely lost there, dull lighting. Crapload (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist absence light--Kuvaly (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist Per Crapload. Clear judging error. Lycaon (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist —kallerna™ 16:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist --Cayambe (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 6 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Crapload (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Delist Poor lighting, messy composition --Relic38 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep There's a compromise here between getting the translucence on top, or getting perfect views of the gills. The gills are neither all that blown nor particularly problematic; I think this is an excellent example of fungi photography. We have about three fungi FPs, so it's not like it's an easy subject. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)