Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2010

File:Danceinalanya.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2010 at 19:37:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by ozgurmulazimoglu - nominated by ozgurmulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per George...I must be out of it today...I didn't even notice the overexposure, etc, until he pointed it out. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose heavy overexposure, blown white, face ugly distorted. And no any EV, sorry --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per George. --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per George. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as above. --Vprisivko (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macroflowerpurple.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2010 at 19:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by ozgurmulazimoglu - nominated by ozgurmulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like, but petals on the bottom-left seem out of focus compared to the ones on the top right...or is that just me?? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition has an idea, but Ks0stm is right about focus plus there is some CA. --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image. But CA and DOF issues prevent it from becoming FP imo. --Cayambe (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Matti. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plant identification need before nomination --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belle of Nelson Whiskey poster.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 06:18:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wells & Hope Co. - uploaded by Coffee - nominated by Coffee — Coffee // have a cup // 06:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Belle of Nelson poster for their sour mash whiskey, shows a Turkish harem of nude white women, and a black man with water pipe in foreground.
Support — Coffee // have a cup // 06:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I'm not sure what would be the outstanding features of this picture, but it is certainly a most unusual setting for an advertisement for alcohol. MartinD (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically excellent. And for the very reason that made MartinD vote neutrally. --Cayambe (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cayambe and for historical value --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High visual impact, historical value, and good quality. --99of9 (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The quality is amazing, estetically, its nice, but I just cant support the stereotype with nude women selling things and the black man working for the white. --Korall (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but that "stereotype" makes this image even more historical, and shows something that could not possibly be sold in the US like that today. — Coffee // have a cup // 01:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, historically significant work. Excellent quality. –blurpeace ^(talk) 02:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: good quality and historically interesting. Jonathunder (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support After studying the pixels in great detail while downloading the full image, I felt like having a drink already. I smile at this nomination and can appreciate the somewhat sleazy topic. Excellent colors and detail level. --Slaunger (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a technically meritorious--and dare I say quaint?--example of nineteenth century prejudice and ignorance. It says something about a time and place that a reasonably successful product could be sold this way. Durova (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Wasserkuppe im Winter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2010 at 14:48:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
Info The Wasserkuppe, with 950 meters above sea level the highest mountain in the Rhön and Hesse.
Abstain -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. I suggest changing your vote to abstain if you are not willing to support as the author. --99of9 (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jonathunder (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is good stuff and a good stitch. Great light and scenary. It seems for me that the verticals are not quite veritical. Like the antenna on the main dome seems to tilt slightly to the right, the silo tilts slightly to the left and the mast/antenna to the right of that tilt a pixel or so to the right again. Of course it may be so that these structures are not really vertical on the site. I also noticed a white pixel in the blue sky. But these are really just some pedantic observations and not something which needs to be adressed for me to support wholeheartedly. --Slaunger (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, ich kann kein Englisch. Den Pixelschaden habe ich korrigiert. Zu den senkrechten. Das Kraftwerk rechts besteht aus einem Bild. Das Silo selbst ist nach links geneigt, vergleiche mit den Antennen und dem Kamin links und rechts daneben. Die rechte Antenne am Zaun ist eine einfach Konstruktion, steht auch etwas schief. Die Kuppel selbst mit den Antennen links, sind ebenfalls ein Bild. Die Spitze der Kuppel ist etwas schief, vergleiche mit den beiden Antennen direkt links neben der Kuppel, die senkrecht sind. Alle scheinbare schiefe Strukturen sind auch in der Realität so schief. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kein Problem. Ich verstehe. Thank you for fixing the pixel and explaining the apparently natural tilt of some of these structures. Grüße aus Dänemark. --Slaunger (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I do think the verticals are a little out it does not have any real effect on a well caught scene for me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colors. The radar station makes the composition really nice. --Aktron (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 00:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oops, almost forgot this image. Nice. Nikopol (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bombus hypnorum male - side (aka).jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2010 at 12:03:00

Info Small, posterized, unsharp (Original nomination)
Delist —kallerna™ 12:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline resolution yes, but I do not see any posterization (where?). Nor do I notice sharpness problems. Actually, I think the information content per pixel is rather high. I am not redy to delist it - yet. Maybe in a year or two... --Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Slaunger --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SlaungerNikopol (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kisoroszi, zrající kukuřice.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2010 at 11:17:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aktron - uploaded by Aktron - nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aktron (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting idea, but too busy background (although natural) for my taste. Could also do with a crop at the top. --Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Background view is typical for corn field. Its no need to crop the foto. --Umnik (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Phew, undecided. Background is busy, but great resolution and colors. DOF could be a bit more shallow, though, and I too think it could use a subtle cropping on the upper edge just to get rid of the leaf in on the left side. Nikopol (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Neutral...it would take a lot of argument for either support or oppose for me to decide on one or the other...this one is exceptionally hard for me to decide on per Nikopol's points. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad. --Karel (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop messes a bit the composition --S23678 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO crop is too tight at the bottom and the background a little bit too obtrusive for FP; but good quality! --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thor's Hammer-Bryce Canyon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2010 at 08:55:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tobi 87 - uploaded by Tobi 87 - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Aktron (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pjt56 (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks like it might be fractionally tilted but a good image. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ Nikopol (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have an existing FP from Bryce Canyon with almost the exact same view: File:USA 10654 Bryce Canyon Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg. That one is good, but I think this one is better. If this gets promoted, I will nominate the "old" one for delisting. --Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Camera EXIF? ■ MMXX ^talk 00:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice image, but is it possible to lower the exposure (or just the highlights) a little since the clouds are burnt? (Do you still have the raw file?) --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO Lucas version is better, mostly because of the lightning. —kallerna™ 12:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with kallerna --Simonizer (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I´m afraid I also like the old FP better in terms of light and colors, although the resolution / sharpness is better on yours. Since it´s exactely the same view, I think we´ll have to choose one picture. Sorry Nikopol (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is featurable, but I prefer the already featured one, sorry. --99of9 (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: very nice image, but I prefer the lighting in the one already featured. Jonathunder (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWhile this FPC has a better quality the the current FP, colors and lightning are not. Per others. --S23678 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flower on the seat of Ancient Side theatre.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 17:52:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by ozgurmulazimoglu - nominated by ozgurmulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A beautiful picture with an interesting composition (which may be too central), but I find it too noisy/posterized for a FP. Also, the species is not documented. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Matti, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose has some esthetic qualities, but per Matti. An indication of the size in the file description would also be relevant (for identification purposes). --Slaunger (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mount Kilimanjaro Dec 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 16:10:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Mt Kilimanjaro, the world's tallest freestanding mountain. Most of the peak was covered with ice a few decades ago but climatic conditions have left very little ice. C/u/n Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting image. It might be better if it were not so very small given the camera used? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a considerable amount of cropping, given that the image was taken from a plane window. --Muhammad (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - valuable image, thanks, but it being hazy and uncategorized with barely legal resolution and central composition doesn't make it FP-class IMO. Sorry. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Matti --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO needs more contrast. —kallerna™ 18:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shiningboat.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 18:00:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by ozgurmulazimoglu - nominated by ozgurmulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeHmmm, no, sorry (95 % black, 1 % blown...)--MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Maulirbert. --Aktron (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too dark and awkward looking. Tiptoety ^talk 08:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Maurilbert and Tiptoety. --Slaunger (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over did with the shutter-play. --TitanOne (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Fort du Salbert-23 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 17:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline. Trees inside the ruins at the Fort du Salbert -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO nothing special. —kallerna™ 18:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No real idea with the composition. Does not work for me. A mess of branches, bushes and old bricks. --Slaunger (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor composition. Tiptoety ^talk 08:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waiting Sunset Table Mountain Cape Town South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2010 at 06:21:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lucag - uploaded by Lucag - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty and well done for its time (2004), but not on par with present day technical quality and of limited value. --Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger. The competition for sunsets is real hard here, even though it shurely is a good, atmospheric picture. Nikopol (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has some appeal but in the end I agree with Slaunger & Nikopol Oppose --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion the composition is great and it is technicaly good enough to be featured --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Slaunger. Jonathunder (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a beautiful sunset, but, per Slaunger --S23678 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leitz Prado BW 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2010 at 15:47:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Great image, perfect composition, high encyclopedic value. Some parts slightly overexposed, but that's almost inevitable, I presume. Several dust spots all over the image, which preferably should be removed. -- MJJR (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to remove the dust. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support now -- MJJR (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak support getting wow from a topic like this is really challeging. But I think you have done what can be done within reasonable limits to illustrate this dias projector. I like the illumination of the projector and the light of the carefully selected background and the composition. As mentioned there is some dirt on the table/dust spots, which should be fixable. I don't know if the small overexposed areas could have been solved using HDR? The reason for my weak support is that I don't quite see as much wow as for most other FPs. Going to the extreme with details, one could also have hidden the ugly power cable with a hole behind the projecter. On the other hand that could have given the impression of a wireless projector... --Slaunger (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really good illustration and certainly a Quality Image, but no WOW-factor. Admittedly that's mission impossible, but still. Kleuske (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Slaunger. I think it would have been difficult to do this much better, and I actually find this picture quite pleasing to the eye. Composition and lighting are great and the cable was also included in a harmonious way to the compositon (I think it´s good it´s depicted in the scene). Whether this image should be a FP depends to a great deal on personal opinion, as with the nominated car below (only this machine can claim more historic value). IMO it is a very good product picture and will be a great addition to any wikipedia article, creating interest in the subject. Nikopol (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image, perfect composition, high encyclopedic value - as was said. And for me it is more than enough. Masur (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a technical picture, there is no need for any WOW-effect. MatthiasKabel (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is FP-nomination, so there is a need for WOW-effect. —kallerna™ 12:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image, per Masur --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the opposes however I also agree with MatthiasKabel Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically excellent (device and image). Per Herby. --Cayambe (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: apparently uncomplicated composition. For next time please note that jpg in the lower case is the preferred file extension; Image titles and file names on the English Wikipedia (commons refers to the various language Wikipedias for these guidelines). Snowmanradio (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You might have better luck on a wikipedia, if you can connect the image to an article. NativeForeigner (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: very nice, and I think it has a "quiet" wow. Jonathunder (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Petrikirche mit Stadtmauer-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2010 at 09:18:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bundesstefan - uploaded by Bundesstefan - nominated by Horst-schlaemma -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors and composition are good, but the crop on the lower border cut a building´s roof, it´s noisy and the resolution is rather low. I would accept it if it was some exceptional one-time event, but as this building will not be demolished, IMO we can wait for images with higher image quality, sorry. Nikopol (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steilküste bei Ahrenshoop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2010 at 08:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nikater - uploaded by Nikater - nominated by Horst-schlaemma -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but the colors did not convince me to support. --Aktron (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view and fairly good composition, but not very interesting and valuable. Light is a tad too harsh for my taste and there are dust spots in the sky. --Slaunger (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna™ 11:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vertical cliffs above willows Emigrant Wilderness.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2010 at 17:23:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dcrjsr - uploaded by Dcrjsr - nominated by Dcrjsr Emigrant Wilderness has only a few places this dramatic, and none of them on trail. For me, the appeal is the accessible route next to the completely vertical granite, as well as the composition. Has map location. -- Dcrjsr (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dcrjsr (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the symmetric composition with the dark trees vertically framing the subject does not please me. Nikopol (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now replaced with a cropped version (above). In 3D the trees help emphasize the vertical granite - but I agree that they were too dark and heavy for the 2D composition. I like this version better, and appreciate the comment. Dcrjsr (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice! --High Contrast (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I never saw your earlier version, but regrettably I do not think the composition has enough wow. Some of it has to do with the dark framing, but that's not all. Can't really explain "what's wrong". Somehow the dramatic scene should just have had a more dramatic composition IMO, and this one has a little too much point-and-shoot character and is somewhat uninteresting. --Slaunger (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support...personally I like the framing, as it sets my focus/attention on the cliffs in the middle the same as if he cropped out the trees. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the cloud looks blown, and there's not enough wow for me. --99of9 (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do rather like this image. However, after looking at it quite a few times it hasn't quite worked for me. I think the subject is great but the framing which is rather dark takes over from that subject for me. Oppose I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Herby --S23678 (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:05june-dow7-wide.ogv, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2010 at 21:07:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Josh Wurman, during the VORTEX2 projects - uploaded by Ks0stm - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Background Info Just warning ahead of time this is rather slow loading. This is a Doppler on wheels image of a tornadic thunderstorm captured during the VORTEX2 project. In the velocity image on the left, Blues/green represent winds moving towards the radar, and reds/yellows indicate winds moving towards the radar. The reason that some of the darker blues contain red/yellow within them is a trait known as Aliasing, where the winds are moving faster than the radar can detect. In the reflectivity image on the right, the main body of the storm can be seen, with the appendage on the bottom of the storm being a hook echo, which is associated directly with the tornado, and the tornado circulation itself can be seen as the doughnut like shape in the later part of the animation. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to see a bit more info (as above) on the image-page. Kleuske (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, please. Without your description on this page, I would have struggled to understand what the animation is showing. Nikopol (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know the place and the range of the radar station. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I basically changed the description to what I mentioned above, and added a mention of the location (this storm was near La Grange, Wyoming), although I do not know what location the radar was at nor its range. I can tell you, however, that it was the Center for Severe Weather Research's DOW7 radar, if that gives the ability to find the information. The tornado it captured also had IMAX footage shot from inside the tornado by the TIV 2, if that helps put a location to it (probably not, but I am involved enough with weather that it tells me which storm on which day, etc). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Incredible animation. Highly educational and valuable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Durova (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Dragonfly portrait 01 (MK).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2010 at 14:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by -- Leviathan (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- Leviathan (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I removed the dustspot (clear cache)! Thanks to Darius Bauzys for showing me the spot! --Leviathan (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have 37 FPs already of Odonata (the order of dragonflies and damselflies). A quality of the nominated photo compared to most others is that it shows interesting details of the head. However, among the order, I do not think that it is quite on par with File:Aeshna cyanea - head close-up (aka).jpg concerning composition, colours, light (it is a bit harsh) and detail level (albeit the existing FP actually has quite bad resolution in terms of number of pixels). Going to the more general anthropods, I think we have several examples showing heads of superior in, e.g., File:Tenodera sinensis 3 Luc Viatour.jpg and especially the outstanding File:Caliphrodae head.jpg. (The latter is a super-FP for me, so noms do not have to be on par with that one for me to pass over the bar). So, in summary, I think it is a very nice photo, close to passing for me, but not quite on par with what is seen at FP - especially concerning composition. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think its unfair to directly compare a Sympetrum head with the head of an Aeshna Cyanea. Aeshna Cyanea is about twice the size so the head area is four times bigger. It is harder to take an equally good image of a much smaller object. I think I would have prefered a less centered composition, but IMO the Aeshna cyanea portrait is cropped too tight, so I like this image better. OK, so we have 37 odonata FP:s? There are more than 5000 odonata species so I don´t think we have too many of them.--Korall (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken concerning comparing the heads. I was not aware of the large difference in size, which has a big impact on the difficulty. Still I find it has a weak composition and somewhat harsh light. <rant>OK, so there are 5000 odonata species. There are 950,000 species of insects and we have <6 mio images on Commons. Are you suggesting it would be relevant to have an FP of each of them if a good photo was available? Currently, about one out of 2,300 images uploaded to Commons are featured. That is becasue the FPs should be the best of the best we have. Considering this I think 37 odonta FPs is more than enough. That does not mean there is not room for more, if they are exceptional. We have the alternative valued images program for acknowledging photos of visually distinct species and there can, in principle, be as many as 5,000 odonta VIs if the species are visually disinct. What we need is more diversity in our FP gallery, such that users coming to see our gallery are not dissapointed that what they find intersects very little with what interests and concerns the average user. Thus, our nominators should be encouraged to find new topics, and be discouraged by repeating what is already here by setting a high bar.</rant>. --Slaunger (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didnt mean we should have 5000 fps of dragonflies, I just suggested that the diversity is big enough to let some more in. I think head closeups are interesting and a little different from the rest. I nominated this file with less centered composition and not as harsh light for FP but it didnt go through. Im ready to support a head closeup because I enjoy studying the compound eyes.--Korall (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger. —kallerna™ 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am happy with the composition and light. Impressive head to me. --99of9 (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benz Holländer Windmühle Berg Dorf Schmollensee.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2010 at 09:29:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Horst-schlaemma - uploaded by Horst-schlaemma - nominated by Horst-schlaemma -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: , while being a beautiful image, it has unfortunately too small (<2Mpix) resolution for FP. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gewöhnlicher Löwenzahn.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 13:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Der Wolf (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Taraxacum officinale
Support -- Der Wolf (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the composition is IMO not very interesting. Nikopol (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it, also the composition, but no wow for FP, I cannot support, sorry. --Phyrexian (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Balaklava sick 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2010 at 23:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Simpson- uploaded by NativeForeigner - nominated by Durova & NativeForeigner. Digitally restored from File:Balaklava sick.jpg by NativeForeigner and Durova. --
Info Tinted lithograph of the Crimean War, published 1855.
Support as conominator. -- NativeForeigner (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as conominator. Durova (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, ok. — Dferg (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:NYC Panorama edit2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 23:06:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info photographed by Jnn13 - stitched by LiveChocolate - nominated by LiveChocolate -- LiveChocolate (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LiveChocolate (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredibly detailed. I like to be pedantic and I have carefully scrutinized the photo for defects. The only thing I found was a very slightly non-vertical antenna on top of one building (see annotation). And then, in full resolution, the trees along the cityline to the water looks "washed out". However, this is not due to the stitching as it is also there in the original. Do not know why they look like that considering the high end equipment used for the individual photos. Outstanding(?) visibility on the day, very well stitched and good light as well. A pity that the 13.6:1 aspect ratio of the skyline is as extreme as it is, as you really need a very wide and high resolution monitor to fully appreciate it in its entirety. --Slaunger (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you! --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, thanks for putting it on commons! Nikopol (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent and detailed. No major flaws or stitching errors. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really fascinating and well done. Greets from Mecklenburg, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. --Cayambe (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Wow, Böhringer, how did you see that one?! you are great. LiveChocolate (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ■ MMXX ^talk 13:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WTF?!! I wish I could take pictures like this...wow, great detail...strongly Support. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I ♥ NY --Phyrexian (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all :) , I wish photographer of this image was also active to see this. LiveChocolate (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very nice work. Tiptoety ^talk 07:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great ! --Jivee Blau (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Although it's indeed an interesting panorama, everything south of the Empire State Building is either not very impressive (no high-rise buildings), or too far to be truly appreciated with the current image resolution (Financial District). --S23678 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for stitching. It was a very, very cold, clear day! I like how you can see where the sun hits the buildings directly (on the left side) and where the buildings are in shadow (on the right). Sun is very low on the horizon in winter, setting behind and to my right. Antenna may be non-vertical because of very strong winds that day!! Jnn13 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive panorama, I think it has the potential to become a classic. PS: I added an image note on the far right of the picture, which might go unnoticed, being so far outside the usual span... Is it a dust spot, and if so, would it be possible to fix it? Thanks in advance. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zebres Equus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 20:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Entomolo - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX ^talk 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - an interesting setting, but unfortunately noisy. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, noisy. —kallerna™ 11:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good shot, but really too noisy for FP. --Phyrexian (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Original uploader has uploaded a new corrected version. ■ MMXX ^talk 20:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral de puebla.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2010 at 15:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Zeisseon - uploaded by Zeisseon - nominated by Duch.seb -- Duch.seb (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Duch.seb (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnatural colors, perspective distortion. -- MJJR (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Unnatural colours are against guidelines, and there is no special reason for them in this case. We are seeking material of maximal educational value. Aesthetics are important, but should not reduce the EV of the subject. --99of9 (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Canada F1 Girl.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2010 at 10:57:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mark McArdle - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by The Evil IP address --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful image that I've come across yesterday. I can see nothing bad about it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support...Good photograph! I forsee this nomination going the way that Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg did. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basar (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose She's of course beautiful, but I find the background too distracting. It's good to show the context, but there are too many elements now IMO. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: composition, distracting background. Jonathunder (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice girl and overall nice shot --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jonathunder. --Cayambe (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO bit overexposed. —kallerna™ 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Aktron (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition. Kaldari (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Karel (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background and exposure. Oska (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not for FP. Basik07 (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chateaulin 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2010 at 12:22:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info

English: Châteaulin & the Aulne river. Finistère, France.
Français : Châteaulin et l'Aulne, dans le Finistère (France).
Info A image of real Autumn calm ina lovely area of France, this capture scene well in early morning light. The image is in use on a number of language wikis.

Info all by Herby -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Dferg (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, boring composition. --Aqwis (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Slightly tilted CCW, minor technical imperfections (CA, highlights), but definitely a very nice depiction of the atmospher of a quiet small town in France in the morning. Not a "wow" as in "stunning", rather a "hmmm, lovely"... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ooops, tilt fixed I hope. Also ca (wasn't looking for it as it was very rare with this camera). Equally the very small highlights fixed. Thanks for the comments :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. As Aqwis said, the composition is quite boring and it has also problems with quality (for instance, check out the flowers in foreground). —kallerna™ 16:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing bad, but I'm expecting more in composition and quality from a FP. --S23678 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chateau-de-maisontiers vue aerienne-2008a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2010 at 17:43:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Smdl - uploaded by Smdl - nominated by Smdl -- Smdl (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Smdl (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a good aerial photo, but I don't see anything special in the composition. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition needs to be more refined. --S23678 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:European Otter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 01:19:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better then the other one! good composition and nice light... --Leviathan (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree it is much better than your first otter attempt. The light is interesting and good and so is the action with the otter eating the fish. At first I actually was in doubt if it was a wild life shot, but then I realized it is from Wisentgehege Springe. As I understand this is not a traditional zoo but somewhat a wildlife park, where the animals are in semi-real environments with quite a lot of space? One thing I noticed which I found a little unnatural was the extra little fish in front of the otter. Is that because it has been thrown in to feed it, or did it actually catch it on its own? Next, I think the fur of the otter looks very peculiar near the head and ear, especially the brighter areas. It looks almost like paint strokes. For me the texture of the fur seem like an unnatural artifact from a not so well done combined noise reduction and sharpening, but I could be wrong and as it could also be partially due to wet fur? Has any postprocessing been done? --Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slaunger, thank you for your great interest. Yes, the Wisentgehege Springe is a game reserve, where the animals are in semi-real environments with more space than in a traditional zoo. But the animals cannot go hunting in this game reserve, the rangers feed them. I saw, this European Otter got at each feeding five fishes thrown by the ranger onto the frozen see, where the European Otter is now lying. The European Otter has a very large winter coat like a too large cloak. It is hanging in folds, when he is lying on the ground. But he needs the large coat when he is going (look this image). I did not change the fur and the folds of this European Otter, this is naturally, of course.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Hi Michael. Thank you for adressing my questions and clarifying some of my doubts. I'm torn on this one. Pro: Good catch of an Otter in an interesting eating situation in an environment which is not as obvious zoo-like as many other photos of animals in captivity. Good composition and light and colors. Con (and after reading a little bit about the natural behavior of European Otters, e.g., here) it seems like it only hunts at night in its natural environment, that it would eat small prey, like the small fish in the front, while in the water, (larger prey like the fish it is eating could be dragged on land). At daytime it would typically be in its den. So, the whole setup does not seem to illustrate natural behavior of this animal, but a staged behavior inherent to captivity. We have two other otter FPs (although none of the European Otter), File:Sea-otter-morro-bay 13.jpg of a sea otter is my favorite with a great composition, and it is a wild life shot. We also have the lovely File:LutraCanadensis fullres.jpg, which is a zoo-shot, but where it is not apparent from the photo that it is a zoo shot. I do not qute think the nominated image is on par with these due to the behavior aspects. --Slaunger (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quality - badly posterized. The subject itself is very good, and the lightning is superp! —kallerna™ 16:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and light. Calandrella (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The face is badly posterized. If you haven't done the processing, then perhaps it was your camera trying to do noise reduction + sharpening by itself. Unfortunately this wrecked the result, so if this is the case I'd look into your camera settings. --99of9 (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flyinalanyamuseumyard.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2010 at 19:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fly in the garden of the Museum of Alanya

Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by ozgurmulazimoglu - nominated by ozgurmulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can this be identified? I don't think this is up to FP standard, but an identification would definitely make it more valuable. --99of9 (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Clear oppose in its current state. --99of9 (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unidentified and shallow DOF. I also find the actual size of the fly kind of small. --Korall (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs to be identified to a reasonable taxonomic level - part of standard homework prior to nomination for candidates of organisms. --Slaunger (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gastrimargus Musicus Barbed Wire.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 03:26:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9. I hope you will be slightly lenient on the limited DOF in this image. I think this is another case in which capturing a fleeting moment of action makes up for the technical issue. I'd been trying to capture these things in flight because that is the only time they show their yellow back wings, but had given up and was shooting landscapes when one of them was unfortunate enough to get his head stuck in a barbed-wire fence for a few seconds. I've never seen this happen to an insect, so dashed to get a few shots in before it got itself free. -- 99of9 (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. -- 99of9 (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent composition, excellent light, excellent combination of foreground and background colors, an interesting moment and poor DOF. Everything else except the DOF are so great here so I think they overweight the compromised DOF in this case. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've looked at this a number of times now. I don't think I can put it better than Matti :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would normally have opposed due to focus problems, but given the given the transient and quite unusual nature of the event, and that it is a really brilliant and clean composition (comparable to one of our best athropod FPs concerning composition), I think mitigating normal rules is warranted here. --Slaunger (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Problems with DOF ja overall sharpness. IMO the colours are bit dull. —kallerna™ 16:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Matti - largely fine except for one issue. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Slaunger for this unique shot! --Leviathan (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Shallow DOF vs WOW. Latter one wins in this case. Nikopol (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bidgee (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Michelangelos David.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2010 at 08:55:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michelangelo - uploaded by David - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - central composition, low resolution. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Matti, also: main subject partly overexposed and noisy in some areas (front below hair, legs). Sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality problems, overexposed and too tight crop at the bottom --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is too low. We absolutely need a featured picture of one of the most important masterpiece of art in the human history. --Phyrexian (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sighişoara (Schäßburg, Segesvár) - Clock Tower from park.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2010 at 15:30:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Calandrella (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No clear focus (composition-wise) on a subject --S23678 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Dark Side of Carbon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 16:19:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The distribution of black carbon around the globe.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support unusual view, rare --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sort of impressive, I like it. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but Comment it could use a scale as to what color = more/less carbon. Is white more carbon, or purple, or something else? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no information from the source regarding how the colour represents the amount of carbon. I think because it is about black carbon, darker colours represent more carbon etc. Originalwana (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Without a key to the color coding the value of this otherwise fine illustration collapses IMO. Sorry. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting... --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Matti. FP is more than pretty pictures. It is also knowing what we see. --Slaunger (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we know what it is. --99of9 (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like the white and purple represents black carbon[1], but a legend is necessary as mentioned above. This movie might include information, but unfortunately I cannot view it right now. G.A.S 04:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Fort du Salbert-20 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 17:15:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline. Entry from the outside to access at the antenna room S3 (Ouvrage "G"), near the ruins at the Fort du Salbert -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pity that branch is there on the bottom-right. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO nothing special. Dull colours. —kallerna™ 18:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors are nice but there is indeed nothing special. Just a concrete walls. And of course, the name in filename is also something I don't like. --Aktron (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've looked long and hard at my analog wow-o-meter. The needle just isn't moving. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing special, sorry. Tiptoety ^talk 08:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snapshot feel. --S23678 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Fort du Salbert-24 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 17:10:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline. Ruins at the Fort du Salbert. -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting object --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO nothing special. —kallerna™ 18:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting composition. CCW tilt? --Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition, crop: too much foreground. Jonathunder (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snapshot... --S23678 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaroměř winter 2010 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 21:35:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj
Support -- Karel (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support After several not really nice pictures this one I like and why not support FP status. --Aktron (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, not outstanding enough, neither considering technical aspects, nor in terms of WOW. FP should be outstanding. Nikopol (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but I think the tree should have been placed further to the right to get a better composition. Also I am not too fond of direct sun photos as there are so many unpleasant side effects, like the "rainbow" in the lower left. Still, going up against the sun can give some interesting light as there is on this one, and I am wondering how it would have looked like if you had been in a slightly different position such that a thick branch or the trunk of the tree has obstructed the direct view of the sun disc? --Slaunger (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 11:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should've gone for the rule of thirds on this one. Image looks flat. --TitanOne (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary composition --S23678 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xerochrysum subundulatum.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2010 at 02:35:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9 99of9 (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is the first image of this Australian alpine species in our database. --99of9 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom -- 99of9 (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss Veitshöchheim, 10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2010 at 17:50:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
Info The castle Veitshöchheim is a former summer residence of the Prince-bishops of Würzburg, and later the kings of Bavaria, in Veitshöchheim, Germany.
Abstain -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is a nice picture with good quality, ~~but the stairs have been a bit distorted by the stitching program, which looks real strange in 100% view. Do you think this could be fixed?~~ Nikopol (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, meinst du das geschwungene in der Treppe? Die Treppe ist in der Realität auch etwas geschwungen. Das liegt nicht am stitchen. Siehe dazu das verwendete Einzelbild. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it is indeed not at all produced by stitching! I am sorry, I just couldn´t imagine it´s like that in reality ;) Nikopol (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alles klar, kein Problem. Es handelt sich um insgesamt drei Bilder, die beiden Nahtstellen sind aber weiter außen. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have supported if the light had been better. I find the light too flat, I'm afraid. Otherwise, a very nice building and good, overall quality and value. --Slaunger (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger - colours and lightning. —kallerna™ 11:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but poor lightning conditions --S23678 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm removing this speedy. The nominator did not support, so the second support from Simonizer is independent. I will write a message at the FPCbot page. --99of9 (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kilitbahircastlegeometry.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2010 at 19:54:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Inside Kilitbahir Castle, Gallipoli, Çanakkale

Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by ozgurmulazimoglu - nominated by ozgurmulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting in the center of the photograph with sudden switch from bright to barely visible, and part of the top of the rectangular thing is overexposed. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has some interesting minimalistic compositional qualities, without being really convincing. But as Ks0stm also mentions there are problems with the light as well. --Slaunger (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Florent Pécassou (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea and quite a good image. However the centre right hand side is really rather over exposed so all in all I'm afraid I cannot support this one. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 11:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not convinced by the composition. --S23678 (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ParmaMelor AMO TMO 2009279 lrg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 06:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA MODIS - uploaded by Atmoz - nominated by Juliancolton -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This satellite image depicts two tropical cyclones in the western Pacific Ocean, demonstrating their close proximity. It also illustrates an example of the complex process known as the Fujiwhara effect, in which two tropical systems "orbit" around each other. Not only is this file educational, but it's very high-quality near as I can tell, and is certainly visually appealing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whoa...great image. Directly in between the centers of the two storms, in the gap between them, the clouds almost appear 3D with depth when viewed at full size... Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very cool. Good one Julian. Tiptoety ^talk 08:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good nomination, nice look to two storms --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of high encyclopedic value. --Cayambe (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oska (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bidgee (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rainbow Valley.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2010 at 02:23:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Chmehl - nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was just browsing Category:Panoramics in Australia and this stuck out to me. -- 99of9 (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 04:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 12:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image, great colours --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above Nikopol (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bidgee (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice light. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although there's some signs of posterization (or de-noising artifacts?) in the sky, the overall panorama is excellent. --S23678 (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support LiveChocolate (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 06:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunnibergbrücke Huefte.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 06:07:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Ikiwaner - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could someone who knows German and English translate the description into English? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Done --Cayambe (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This reminds me of a cross. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose After thinking about it for a while I have to say that this very good photo does not really have the compositional qualities that I would anticipate for an FP. I cannot put my finger on what it is, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting composition, no wow. —kallerna™ 11:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is uncomfortable for the viewer producing a slightly claustrophobic feeling. The bridge support dominates the picture too much and the uptilted viewing angle makes me feel like my neck is in an uncomfortable position. Plus the suspension attachments on the far side of the bridge make for what looks like an image artefact in the straight line of the bridge. Oska (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The foreground element spoils what would otherwise be a very good picture. --S23678 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mercedes-Benz S203 -04.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2010 at 15:25:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 15:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 15:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very interesting picture to me with no wow and the focus/sharpness is rather poor --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Herby, plus unbalanced composition --Pjt56 (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose easy subject, unsharp and noisy Je-str (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow Schnobby (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unlike most people here, I do not think it is completely unappealing to the eye. That said, I do not feel it is up to FP standards. Tiptoety ^talk 06:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How could I improve the composition? IMO the scene is attractive witch the continuing road and snowfall (and the survival of the car), but maybe you haven't ever driven a Mercedes. ;) Is the composition somehow better in our other land vehicle-FPs like these: Ford, trailer, train, Mercedes (!) or Audi? Do all car-FPs have to be panning shots? —kallerna™ 15:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Composition - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mostar Old Town Panorama 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2010 at 15:58:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ramirez - uploaded by Ramirez - nominated by Ramirez -- Ramirez (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ramirez (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danielg1987 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 20:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Scewing (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bidgee (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - maybe slightly too low contrast and small resolution, but very beautiful view and nice light. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support IMO there are some flaws like the sunshades of the café to the left, but the light is beautiful. Somehow reminded me of a movie. Nikopol (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this HDR? --S23678 (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. --Ramirez (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The light conditions are impressive. --S23678 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support LiveChocolate (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 14:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Cayambe (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Zug Langzeitbelichtung.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 13:36:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Der Wolf (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info bulb exposure of a moving train in Germany (exposure time: 380 seconds)
Support -- Der Wolf (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is really nice concept. I always liked such pictures, especially with Bratislava Nový Most in background... (that's just an suggestion for some other eventual FP ;-) Aktron (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite dark, but I like the composition. And we don´t seem to habe many FP like this. Nikopol (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well worked image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't find the composition so exiting, that it would mitigate the problems with noise and overall quality. —kallerna™ 11:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think a better background composition would help. --99of9 (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The idea is great, but not developed enough. Different perspectives and locations could improve the result by much. --S23678 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Audi e-tron (Edit1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 23:29:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Der Wolf im Wald - Retouched by LiveChocolate - nominated by LiveChocolate -- LiveChocolate (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LiveChocolate (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question The original has just been featured, so I am a bit puzzled with the purpose of this nomination? You do not describe the retouching done by you on the image page, could you please flesh that out a bit? --Slaunger (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He (she?) replaced the background with black. But as you mentioned the retouching should have been described, and I´m not shure whether this edit is really neccessary. It was a car show, so the guys in the background were acceptable for me (especially since they were rather dark and not covered by DOF). Nikopol (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer this cleaned version over the original --Muhammad (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The retouches that I made was removing people from back as well as removing their reflection on the Audi glossy base, I think both for FP and for educational purposes, it is more preferable than original version, a fun way to compare both images: if you have IE7 or higher, FireFox or any other tabbed browser, open both versions in tabs, then switch between tabs, and compare them, I think my edit is much better than original image, but of course thanks to "Der Wolf im Wald" for taking this high quality picture. LiveChocolate (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhammad, so please support it :) LiveChocolate (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, glad to

Support --Muhammad (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Livechocolate, as the others have mentioned, on the image summary page you need to add a description of what you've done. The usual way is a template called: retouched (with double curly brackets around it). --99of9 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support replacement now. --99of9 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also prefer this one, IMO it's more useful, but please add a description of what you have done by adding {{Retouched|description of modifications here}} to the image page. ■ MMXX ^talk 13:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have added the template. LiveChocolate (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Support new version, and has voted for delist old version (look below all candidates) --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - The shadows of the removed people on the right (white ground area) are annoying me. Original featured version is IMO better, background looks unrealistic here. -- Der Wolf (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frankfurt Am Main-Peter Becker-Frankfurts Vorstadt Sachsenhausen zu Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts-1889.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2010 at 09:34:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Peter Becker in 1889 - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Horst-schlaemma.

Frankfurt panorama of the 17th century, 1889 watercolour by Peter Becker featuring the Alte Brücke.
Mylius said: It actually is an artist's impression from 1889 of Frankfurt (its suburbia Sachsenhausen respectively) as it looked like around 1600. But he didn't add any imagination, every single object that can be seen (i.e. the bridge tower, the bridge, the fortification, most of the buildings) is taken from historical descriptions / depictions of that time. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong support, well done scanned original. Rare, valued and interesting --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Florent Pécassou (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, so many things to look at. --Cayambe (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikopol (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! ■ MMXX ^talk 13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose Very nice, except for peculiarly looking horizontal and vertical defect lines (see annotations). Could this be retouched, please. If so, I am ready to support. I noticed a significant CCW tilt of the tower to the left. This may be there in the orginal as well. Is it possible to verify that? Just looks peculiar because other man made structures seem to have almost perfect vertical lines. --Slaunger (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info It seems a matter of the original, as it's quite a big piece of work. For further information Mylius might help. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I too think that restoration is not necessary. This appearance has a historical value. And I support as is this image --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question This looks very bright for a watercolor of its age. No notes on the file hosting page of whether this is a restored/edited file. Please explain? Durova (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Of course it's restored and edited, as Mylius always does. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Undocumented restoration. Also no link to unaltered file. Please correct the omissions. Also technical shortcoming in color balance: right third has excessive red. Durova (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Scewing (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Durova. Blurpeace 08:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Clouds over Africa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2010 at 14:41:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Cumulus and stratocumulus clouds. C/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small size (2Mp only) and no wow, sorry --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The perspective on the subject is weak. --S23678 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a QI, but no wow enough for a FP. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:P1170102 Viksvine hesperija Heteropterus morpheus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2010 at 15:04:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 15:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 15:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pjt56 (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Posterized, unsharp, noisy, overburnt yellow, name. —kallerna™ 11:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is wrong with the name ? - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The beginning of it (P1170102). —kallerna™ 12:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes I think so --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:360° Au Argenstein Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info all by --Böhringer (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that a 180 degrees panorama centered on the church would offer a better composition, since the interesting phenomenon is centered there. As well, a moiré pattern in visible on the track, probably from post-processing (downsampling?) --S23678 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nein, der moiré-effekt verschwindet, wenn man das Bild komplett öffnet. --Böhringer (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, moiré is visible at full resolution as well (on the upper portion of the "center track"). It's small, but easily avoided by full resolution. --S23678 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Once again, excellent technical quality. I didn't see any significant Moíre. However, I don't find the location spot as beautiful as with your previous panorama. Maybe it is the church shadow trick, which might be excellent in a narrower crop, but maybe isn't optimal for 360-panorama. The composition does not work well IMO when viewing this downscaled to fit the screen. Anyway, when scrolling through it in 1:1, the picture works very well. This time Neutral from me, but please keep up your excellent work! (You have probably spoiled us since I would have probably voted "Support" if I hadn't seen your previous panoramas. :-)) I'll actually be in Austria next week and hope to see and enjoy views which would be near to something as beautiful as with your best panoramas. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ich glaube das Panorama hat kleine Stitching-Fehler. (Die "unscharfen Streifen" in der Spur unterhalb Damüls) Je-str (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree with MattiPaavola. --Aqwis (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Byodoin Phoenix Hall Uji 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2010 at 05:23:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wiiii - uploaded by Wiiii - nominated by Wiiii -- Wiiii (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wiiii (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The composition is ok. The low sun position creates a relaxed morning or late afternoon feeling. However, I find the shadows to be too dark for a FP. Also, the EXIF time stamp seems to be wrong. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, bit blurry, too tight crop. —kallerna™ 14:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Technical quality is not great. Tiptoety ^talk 05:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)FPCBot (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coracias caudatus Lilac breasted Roller.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2010 at 10:29:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Yoky - uploaded by Yoky - nominated by JarlBompe -- JarlBompe (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JarlBompe (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 11:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors. ■ MMXX ^talk 13:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice subject, composition and colours. But ~~low resolution (<600 KB) and~~ CA at right (blue-green and violet fringes). --Cayambe (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a difference between resolution and image size. What you mention (<600kb) is the storage space the image occupies. This picture has more than the necessary 2megapixels resolution --Muhammad (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you are right. 'Strikethrough' above for that. --Cayambe (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it possible to have this image with less aggressive JPEG compression? I see small chessboards all around the image. They may be caused by the high JPEG compression, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the composition is good and the subject interesting. --MattiPaavola (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Matti noticed, there are a lot of jpeg artifacts, I will support an uncompressed version if you have. Great composition. --Phyrexian (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alas I have to agree with the others. --99of9 (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tiptoety ^talk 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mandelbrot sequence new.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2010 at 20:02:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Simpsons contributor - uploaded by Franklin.vp - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Zoom on the Mandelbrot set by more than 31 orders of magnitude. The scale difference from start to end is equivalent to zooming from the 100,000 light-year diameter of the milky way to a 0.1 nm diameter of a single hydrogen atom atom in one take! Doing this requires a lot of care dealing with precise floating point computations, efficient algorithms and represents 136 hours of computations on six processor cores. I think the resolution is well chosen in the respect of achieving a reasonable file size and the possibility to replay the animation with a satisfactory high frame rate on most computers. Much care has been taken to choose color palettes giving the maximum beauty and wow. Much more rudimentary versions of this was personally one of the things that triggered me into initiating science studies back in 1991, seeing that mathematics is cool! and wanting to understand this stuff. Hopefully this animation one can trigger new young people into thinking the same... --Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain For balance, considering the creator is voting here as well. --Slaunger (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - a classic. (PS shouldn't the link to the Java source code mentioned in en-wp-fpc be added to the file page?) --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I prefer the higher res version now that it is available. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source code is available here if somebody would like to add that link to the image. --SimsContPics (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Slaunger (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the link on the image description page. --SimsContPics (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I screwed up in my edit. Fixed now. --Slaunger (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Certainly plenty of wow in good fractals. The last few frames seem to wobble left-right :-(. --99of9 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Now that a higher resolution version is available, I'd prefer to feature it. --99of9 (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Simpsons Contributor (creator) voting here too! The last few frames wobble due to the breakdown of DoubleDouble (emulated 128-bit floating point) numbers at that point. Double primitives (64-bit floating point numbers) break down just slightly after entering the first Julia set. --SimsContPics (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a reason not to cut off the last few frames? It's amazing overall, but they just seem to spoil it a little. --99of9 (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could. Some people say it's appropriate (to show precision breakdown) and some don't. There's more info here --SimsContPics (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a personal preference for keeping the last few frames showing the breakdown of the 128 bit precision floats used as I find it has an educational element. In practise you just cannot keep on zooming, as, although you can numerically use arbitrary precision floating point, you will hit (much harder) a computational wall, where you simply do not have the computing resources available to keep on zooming, so at some stage you just have to stop. On the other hand, I think such Mandelbrot set animations are typically shown in zoom regimes where numerical precision is not a problem, and maybe for the more casual viewer it would be better to cut the frames off? What you could do is upload an alternative under a new filename (as this file is currently being considered at WP:FPC, where the trend is to keep the wobbling frames, so it should keep those frames in the present file name). The alternative can then be put up for voting together with this and we can see, which one is preferred by the reviewers. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The wobbling is a property of how you've calculated it, not a property of the fractal. That's why I think it's less timeless with wobbles. --99of9 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there is no pixelated version for the DoubleDouble animation, this one goes right to the last frame I made (the old rainbow images might still be available on Wikipedia). On the subject of resolution, the first animation was 640x480 and that was something like 80MB+. --SimsContPics (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, then forget about a pixelated version. For certain applications, a higher res 640×480 pixels, large file size version could certainly also be interesting - but just keep them under separate file names such that users can decide which to use depending on the use case. Would you be able to generate the same zoom sequence as this in 640×480 pixels with the same per/pixel high fidelity (except at the very end of course)? --Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've uploaded the 82.8MB 640x480 (File:Mandelbrot zoom 1.gif) version. Could you add the particulars to the file description? (Slight change: this uses 3x supersampling, not 6x) Thanks. --SimsContPics (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added the particulars. Please check that it is OK. I also linked to it from the file page of the nominated animation. You know, you could do this yourself

? --Slaunger (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't used WC much. All the details are right. --SimsContPics (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please

Keep the wobbling frames, but please document them in the file page. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be quite simple for me to upload a new version without those last few frames, shall I do that? I certainly agree that there is educational value, so to speak, in leaving those last frames in. When I made my first basic double precision “rainbow” zoom I zoomed past the point of breakdown until the image pixelated for the same reason and I made that part of the description. --SimsContPics (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have value independent of this nomination to upload both a version without any wobbling as well as a version, where you proceeed with the zoom to see the complete numerical breakdown with pixelation and everything (using two new file names on Commons). You should then link this media file to the other versions using the other_versions parameter of the {{Information}} template.--Slaunger (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Definitely --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! --Aktron (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 12:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral It is an amazing work, but its resolusion is low, so I'm not sure if it can be a featured picture. --Patriot8790 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info Yes it is always difficult to find the right balance concerning resolution, file size and fps for an animation. Please note though that the usual 2MPx requirement for images is explicitly excempted for animations. Comparing the nomination with the last four promoted FP animations I get, (nomination bold faced)
    - Resolution: 280×264, 300×200, 320×240, 600×300, 1000×375
    - File size: 381 kB, 555 kB, 2.06 MB, 4.54 MB, 23.64 MB
  - ...which hints at a resolution very representative of other animation FPs and a file size (information content) in the high end. Although I am confident the creator could make even larger resolution animations given enough hours of processing time, I think the file size for a zoom of this depth would become so large that many would give up downloading it to see it. --Slaunger (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support THIS IS WOW!!! --Phyrexian (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! ■ MMXX ^talk 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 07:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh no! Looped psychedelic madness make Nikopol go crazy!
Support above by (23:40, 2 February 2010 Nikopol) --SimsContPics (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh yes ! Takabeg (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful work. I'm torn between the two versions. I support whichever has consensus. -- Avenue (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative File:Mandelbrot zoom 1.gif[edit]

Support This higher resolution version. Users can use the low-res one if that is better for their application, but it seems to me that we should feature the high-res one. My only concern is that this will cause 80MB downloads for everyone viewing the galleries. Is there a way to stop this (Perhaps a special warning on the animations gallery?). --99of9 (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's complicating things. The smaller version is much more suited to most networks (it took about ten minutes for me to upload it with cable internet). It might be better to just leave this article to the subject of featuring the original size, or maybe featuring a set of images in which both are part of a set (like the still zoom in gallery of Wikipedia's Mandelbrot article) --SimsContPics (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alternatives are always complications, but we have a voting mechanism that handles them. I don't think a set is the way to go here because the images don't bring anything significantly different to the table except for size. It's easy for a user to chose their size from the "alternate versions" section of the image page. My main point is that this version is more in line with the guidelines: we do not know how these images will be used in the future, so it is better not to downsample (especially when the dimensions are actually small, as they are here). --99of9 (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it terms of image size and especially file size 320x240 is internet practical; 640x480 is not. Few people have the patience to wait for a 80+MB image to open and I don't think the animation is better even when open. --SimsContPics (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Prefer this higher resolution version for future compatibility. PS please document that wobbling on the image page. PPS there is a slightly related discussion going on on the VI talk page regarding featuring videos or animations if anyone would be interested to share their view on that. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am torn about the resolution question. On one side I agree with 99of9 that it is in the spirit of COM:FPC to go for the highest possible resoution as we have to have also future developments in mind. On the other hand I also think the creator has a pretty strong argument that at present this high resolution version is unpractical due to its file size and bandwidth limitations and its (in)ability to be shown in the intended frame rate on most present day computers. Since we have both we could in a few years delist the "small" one and feature this instead if progression in technology and badwidth matches this. Finally, this whole resolution discussion is actually also due to the fact that animations are only covered very sparsely in the present guidelines, which are very much focused on still images. Maybe it would be time to give animations and video some more special attention, i.e., by making a Featured videos (sub?)-project. That is, move animated gifs out of the FPC scope and into a FVC scope and treat them on an equal footing as videos (.og*) and then make specialised video guidelines for those media types? --Slaunger (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which one is going to be featured? It seems that people withdrawing all their votes for image a and voting for image b is an unusual move. I've given up trying to keep track of what's going on now. --SimsContPics (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting closes on February 9, so at that time we will know. When there are alternatives the procedure is this
1. Check which version(s) fulfill the criteria for being promoted (if any)
2. If more than one version fulfills promotion critera, select the one with most support
That said, there is a slight risk that vote moving will deplete the intial overwhelming support for the original such that there is a risk that none of them gets featured (which would be a pity as clearly the Community is in favor of promoting this Mandelbrot zoom). But let's see what happens, still plenty of time. A reviewer can also support both versions, so it does not have to be vote moving (I just added a vote, as I abstained from the original to retain a balance). --Slaunger (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a risk that all support is being sucked away from the original image now. I wish we could just stick to the original one. --SimsContPics (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stress. There are well more than 10 votes in total, so at least one will get 5. Relax and watch the fun! --99of9 (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support What about delisting previous fractal FP's? This animation explains the concept, while the previous FP's are "simply cute", nothing else. --S23678 (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To my knowledge, we have two related FPs in our archives already: One of a Julia Set, the other one a single image from a particularly esthetically pleasing region of the Mandelbrot Set. Now, the Julia Set is not the same as a Mandelbrot Set (although related), so I think it would be fair to have an FP of a Julia Set as it is also very well known. That said, I do not fancy the colors in that one. I also think a single high-res image of the Mandelbrot Set is OK to have featured in parallel with a zoom animation, as you do not really have the oppertunity to study the detailed structure when watching a zoom animation. For this purpose a single, well-chosen high-resolution image is better IMO. Moreover, the visual appearance is greatly dependent on the chosen color palette, which I think is very well chosen in the FP we have today, albeit I could have wished for a substantially larger resolution of that FP. We also have a 3D FP of the Menger sponge, which is also fractal, but of an entirely different nature. That one should certainly not be nominated for delisting IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would personally get rid of both current fractal FPs, and feature a set of high resolution frames from every step of your fractal. I think that a fractal frame, alone, has only very limited value. --S23678 (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Every frame of my animation? That might be tricky; there are 476 frames. --SimsContPics (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I was thinking about a set of images with images from every order of magnitude, or something similar. In the same way as it's presented here, in the image description. --S23678 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, if you're interested in new Julia sets to be featured I have a string available on Wikipedia if you want to transfer them over to Commons.--SimsContPics (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I personally think that something representing the concept of fractals rather than a simple frame from a set is FP-worth. I must be honest about my lack of knowledge about fractals in general. I understand the concept from your video, but I do not from the Julia set series of images you sent me. Hence my support for your video and my delisting support for previous fractals FP. --S23678 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

The chosen alternative is: File:Mandelbrot_sequence_new.gif

File:Felipe Pigna.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2010 at 19:28:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Roberto Triguez - uploaded by Belgrano - nominated by Belgrano -- Belgrano (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Belgrano (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps you should try QI first. No wow for me. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The image is not mine, I can't nominate it there. I would prefer to know if it fails any of the image guidelines, "no wow" sounds like a very subjetive opinion Belgrano (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the moment this has captured (eyes down, mouth slightly open) has unfortunately robbed the image of life and emotion - Peripitus (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose idem. ferbr1 (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 17:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tiptoety ^talk 05:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Auditorio de Tenerife Pano.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2010 at 18:54:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wladyslaw Sojka - uploaded by Tohma - nominated by -- 190.31.218.23 18:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Wow, cool! I think it could use a little perspective correction on the left side and maybe also a little more selective denoising of the sky, but I´ll also support if you don´t change it. Looks spectacular. Nikopol (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is also an ugly error (maybe failed clone tool application?) in the upper right corner in addition to the rest of the flaws. I produced an edit where I tried to fix the problems. IMO this photo should become a FP, it is a nice depiction of the impressive architecture Nikopol (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Auditorio de Tenerife Pano edit.jpg[edit]

Info Edit with corrected perspective, selectively denoised sky and corner clone error? fixed. I tried to keep the changes as subtle as possible. Nikopol (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The edit is a big improvement, thanks Nikopol. My hesitation to support is due to the lighting. There are some shadows cutting across the natural surfaces of the building. I'm not sure if there is a better hour of the year to take the shot to resolve this. --99of9 (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it´s that bad? I find the composition very effective, and the one loner walking down the stairs makes it perfect. I am gonna

Support Mr. Sojka´s work :) Nikopol (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Yes, I'm afraid the shadows mean it just falls short for me. The single person is no problem at all. --99of9 (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Harsh light and composition (centered subject and too tight crop) --S23678 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support support this version --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per S23678. The crop is far too tight. —kallerna™ 14:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dont like the red and green edges on many places of the building, on the men and the flagpoles. What a pity! Otherwise I would like this image with the "rainbow" on the top of the building. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Auditorio de Tenerife Pano edit.jpg

File:Porlock Weir harbour.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2010 at 16:15:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Herby -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Porlock Weir Harbour in Somerset, UK. It is a small tidal harbour that has existed as a port for at least 1000 years. Such small working ports are rare in the UK nowadays. First light and the tide capture the tranquillity before work starts.

Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 07:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like painting, nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition - IMO too much going on. —kallerna™ 12:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No big quality Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the atmosphere, but IMO the crop is tight on the sides. ■ MMXX ^talk 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kallerna. --S23678 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snowboarder in flight (Tannheim, Austria).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2010 at 15:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sören - uploaded & nominated by ahgee -- Ahgee (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like the composition, colors and the feeling of motion in this picture, although it is not a 100% sharp and noise-free. Same problems here so I think they are negligible Ahgee (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i had voted pro still in the last year, but as i did lot of skiing action sports photography that winter, i now know that this picture is just average... as you also realized, there are some technical problems.. these are not unsolveable. --Jeses (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wow! Amazing composition! —kallerna™ 12:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The backgroud is very noisy and not clear. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background is a little noisy, but IMO not terribly so (and it could be fixed maybe). The blurriness of the background is a pro, highlighting the speed. The boarder himself is sufficiantly sharp, considering he´s jumping, and the composition is nice, as mentioned. But what finally does it for me are the colors and forms: The contrast of the bright (mainly yellow) primary colors in their planar / areal shape (don´t know whether these are the correct expressions in english) against the "detailed" darker blueish background is beautiful. Nikopol (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not really care about background noise in this case.--Garrondo (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support LiveChocolate (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have de-noised the sky only. I uploaded over the top as it is a minor edit and won't change the votes here (apart from maybe one). Maedin\^talk 17:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jonathunder (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Audi e-tron.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2010 at 23:06:01

Info Better image with higher educational values and cleaner (no other objects in the image) nominated, (See: Original nomination)
Delist -- LiveChocolate (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Cayambe (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Avala (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should only be delisted if the other version passes --Muhammad (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment new version already has 5 support votes and 0 oppose --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist —kallerna™ 16:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Scewing (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Tiptoety ^talk 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CZE vs FRA (01) - 2010 European Men's Handball Championship.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2010 at 22:47:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Steindy - uploaded by Steindy - nominated by LiveChocolate -- LiveChocolate (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LiveChocolate (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great action! It is too noisy as it stands, perhaps this can be improved? --99of9 (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy. —kallerna™ 12:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the composition isn't perfect, but this captures the moment very well. (BTW, this would be the first indoor sports FP if it succeeds. Indoor sports photography isn't easy because of the low light.) --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ah, I hadn't considered that it is indoor. I agree that indoor light makes it too hard to expect noise perfection when zoom and a short exposure is required. --99of9 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support pure action. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MattiPaavola. ■ MMXX ^talk 00:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 07:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having thought about it - yes, per Matti --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --elemaki (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support gutes Sportbild --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Matti. Great action shot. -- Avenue (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Von.grzanka (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Cinematheque francaise.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2010 at 04:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Athoune - uploaded by Athoune - nominated by me -- Orsay Lover (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Orsay Lover (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, poor composition. —kallerna™ 12:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective issues with the buildings I'm afraid --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Danielg1987 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see a problem with perspective issues, that is the crazy architecture ie. the lines are not straight in real life either.--Avala (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These trees hides too much the main subject. --S23678 (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - how would you fix this issue?--Avala (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Different perspective; find a way for the trees to enhance the subject, if possible, rather than being a distraction in front. However, the trees makes this building quite difficult for FP IMO. --S23678 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor composition, the trees are in the way. Tiptoety ^talk 06:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Etincelles (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lop Nur and the potash fertilizer production plant 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2010 at 20:33:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler-- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This satellite picture shows a part of the former See Lop Nur in Xinjiang, China, with the production plant to produce yearly 1.2 million tons potash fertilizer. This picture in wikimedia commons is in general the only picture with the production plant. Have a look to Google Maps or to other satellite pictures: there is no comparable view. The production plant has the size 10 to 21 km and has the area 164 km². In the building is enought area for Brussels Region (161.4 km²), the capital city of Europa. Or else there is enought area for Manhattan (87.5 km²), Monaco, Vatican City and other famous places all together in this building. - The image shows also parts of the „Big Ear“ and of the former Tarim River-delta. If you want to read much valuable informations about Lop Desert and Lop Nur please read my research reports in the German Wikipedia Wüste Lop Nor and Lop Nor. -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image feels distorted, none of the corners of the buildings are near right angles. Presumeably this is because it is not taken from directly overhead, but it distracts me. --99of9 (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I agree with 99of9. The point of reference is a bit straining on the eyes. Scewing (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I turned the image 90°. This is a better view for your eyes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a better view, but the distortions remain. --99of9 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Etincelles (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Peacemakers 1868.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2010 at 05:09:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by George P. A. Healy - uploaded by me - nominated by Scewing -- (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Scewing The Peacemakers is an 1868 painting by George P.A. Healy displayed in the White House. It depicts the historic March 28, 1865 strategy session by the Union high command (see image notes) on the steamer River Queen during the final days of the American Civil War, 18 days before Abraham Lincoln's assasination. (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historical importance and visually good. There are some small spots and paint cracking, but that is a true representation of an old painting. I would also be happy to support a further-restored version. --99of9 (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 99of9. --Cayambe (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 99of9 Belgrano (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good and historical valued --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Chacaltaya Pano MC.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2010 at 03:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Chmehl - nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since Chmehl's other pano got such a great response, I'll put in another one of his that I think is fabulous. -- 99of9 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bidgee (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice panorama --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work! Very nice light and lots of details because of the high resolution. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good nom :) Good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support fantastic panorama. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support LiveChocolate (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty. Tiptoety ^talk 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good. Takabeg (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great sharpness, a very impressive landscape. There is a bit too much of the foreground imo, but this is a personal feeling. --Cayambe (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special... IMO just a panorama, the composition isn't superp anyway. —kallerna™ 14:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Taken from an altitude of 5421m is nothing special? Bringing a tripod and a pano head to this height is quite special IMO. I mean, fair enough if the composition lead you to opposing, but calling it nothing special seems for me a little rude. --Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as Kallerna - ordinary composition. --Aqwis (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--elemaki (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Difficult. If it had been described as a pano of the alps, I would not have been very impressed by the composition. The image as such, although technically perfect, does not impress me in terms of esthetics. But on the other hand, 5421m makes it special. Nevertheless it would be great if the author could add image notes to point out which city is which. Nikopol (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 14:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Roke (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thomas Bresson - Creation-goutte-eau (by).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2010 at 20:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. —kallerna™ 10:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Je-str (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice and interesting --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support that's a lot of work --Böhringer (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine work --Schnobby (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 20:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. -- Avenue (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena

File:Landscape Puchenau HDR (DFdB).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2010 at 10:47:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Dein Freund der Baum

Hope the HDR is not overdone, but I think it should be ok -- Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry but the HDR has left the clouds looking very noisy, even at a small image size. Particularly as as the sky is smoothly textured this really stands out. Peripitus (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO boring composition. —kallerna™ 16:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Galerie Lafayette Haussmann Dome.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2010 at 03:52:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Benh LIEU SONG - uploaded by Benh LIEU SONG - nominated by me -- Orsay Lover (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Orsay Lover (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! —kallerna™ 10:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic! Je-str (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 20:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I want to go Paris. Tiptoety ^talk 05:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Truly amazing job, stitch, HDR and composition. Big wow. --Slaunger (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Etincelles (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the firm i work for made the decoration *bigsmile* --Simonizer (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lebanon mountains from near Maqial el Qalaa.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2010 at 03:09:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Peripitus -- Peripitus (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peripitus (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. —kallerna™ 14:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Fine composition, colors and exposure also good. At the moment I´m simply not shure whether it wows me enough to support, but I might change to support later on. (BTW, Exif time stamp seems to be false) Nikopol (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exif time stamp is set to UTC +9:30 (Adelaide, South Australia time), I think Lebanon was at UTC+3 when the photo was taken. I think this gives a shot time of 4:45pm. - Peripitus (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good composition and quality --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:New River, Islington.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2010 at 20:17:20
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nick Sarebi - uploaded and nominated by me Laim (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very much CA in the upper left corner and composition is imo not special enough for FP --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Etincelles (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snakelocks anemone in pool.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2010 at 13:54:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Herby -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Snakelocks anemones (Anemonia viridis was Anemonia sulcata) in a rock pool in Torbay, Devon, UK.
Info The colour of the tentacles was just lovely. To see what this looks like out of water see here, the colour can still be clearly seen.
Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull colours, no wow. —kallerna™ 14:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support = Strong support: composition rather very interesting IMO. Live animals and stones in one diagonal line. Lovely scene from underwater life in the wild nature, nice colors --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support For George Chernilevsky. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The vertical line of the composition and the color of the tentacles are nice, but they´re not enough for me, I´m afraid. The image looks averall rather pale, without much contrast and the subject is rather small. I think I would prefer an underwater shot of a reef, sorry. Nikopol (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The colours/contrast I could of course "fix" (though I prefer reality), however the UK is rather lacking in reefs :( --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The colors look pale because of the water. Here's a color enhanced version: [2] Would you prefer it? --Alex:D (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally it is a little over saturated but I appreciate the thought. I'll maybe tweak mine a little, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've tweaked the image slightly but I'd prefer not to do more. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subjects are too small a fraction of the image for me. --99of9 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berninabahn zwischen Lagalb und Ospizio Bernina im Winter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2010 at 15:56:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kabelleger - uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Scewing (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just uploaded a new version with (hopefully) better white balance. --Kabelleger (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - (Note: File:NSB Di 4 Saltfjell.jpg). Tiptoety ^talk 05:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO better than the existing FP of the same subject. —kallerna™ 16:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course --Simonizer (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Etincelles (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --ianaré (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KleinarlWinterwonderland.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2010 at 17:04:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Winterwonderland after a good night of snow. Alps, Austria.

Info created by Leuo - uploaded by Leuo - nominated by Leuo -- Leuo (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Leuo (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow! Nothing special --Llorenzi (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I venture to disagree with Llorenzi: for a Dutchman, this has enough wow.;) MartinD (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like to come back to this image again and again: technically well done and composed, it shows the grandeur of an alpine winter landscape, with some human presence. --Cayambe (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing special, no wow. Renata3 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems a bit out of focus Scewing (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MissionSantaBarbaraHDR-perspective-edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2010 at 18:36:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mission Santa Barbara was also known as "Queen of the Missions for its graceful beauty." This mission was founded in December 4th, 1786, and was number ten of the 21 Franciscan missions throughout California. It was established by Padre Fermin Francisco de Lasuen. Padre Antonio Paterna was the first of many Padre's in charge here, but he was the first to begin building the mission. Adjusted perspective to straighten vertically.

Info created by Kevin Cole - uploaded by Julielangford - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice look, well done photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! -- Bidgee (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes - good example of a good hdr --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO badly overdone HDR (FP-nomination of the original file). —kallerna™ 15:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a brilliant demonstration of how to videogame the reality. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 21:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tonemapping used makes it look like a computer render rather than an image of reality. HDR is best used to high-dynamic-range compensate for the failings of camera technology, not make the world look like it's been run through photoshop - Peripitus (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the photo looking like it was computer rendered, but the HDR altered so many shadows, that things look fuzzy at full resolution. --Alex:D (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It it´look is too artificial for me, and as Alex:D noted, it also looks fuzzy (for example on the walls). Nikopol (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad picture, but the HDR is bit overdone. Far too much contrast in the mid-tones. --Calibas (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Does not look natural. Tiptoety ^talk 05:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:STS-130 exhaust cloud engulfs Launch Pad 39A.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2010 at 10:26:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info An exhaust cloud engulfs Launch Pad 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Centre in Florida as space shuttle Endeavour lifts off into the night sky on the STS-130 mission (the last shuttle night launch).
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! —kallerna™ 11:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive picture! -- Schnobby (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 22:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 07:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. --Von.grzanka (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Etincelles (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a splendid image! --Vprisivko (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Technically, most of the cloud is not exhaust. It is water from the sound suppression system: [[3]]. 75.41.110.200 19:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Spectacular--Pianoplonkers (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bismuth crystal pyramid.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2010 at 19:37:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by imunarriz - uploaded by imunarriz - nominated by imunarriz -- Imunarriz (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Imunarriz (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Including our existing Featured Picture of bismuth for comparison. --99of9 (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Existing FP is IMO much better. —kallerna™ 12:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the composition could be better. There too much white at the left and the right and I don't like the blur in the foreground. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vivienne.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2010 at 03:55:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Benh LIEU SONG - uploaded by Benh LIEU SONG - nominated by me -- Orsay Lover (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Orsay Lover (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romantic. :) --Von.grzanka (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Good, but I ain't sure if there is enough wow here. —kallerna™ 12:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent travail! -- MJJR (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--kuvaly|d|p| 12:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tullkammaren och gamla varmbadhuset, Varberg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2010 at 15:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown - uploaded by me - nominated by me -- Wolfgangus Mozart (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- terribly blurry, grainy, scratchy, and dirty. Maybe some digital restoration would help? Renata3 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Bovan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2010 at 19:38:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- What a lovely image. Etincelles (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, wish it was from whole rooster. ■ MMXX ^talk 23:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sehr gut --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very proud. --Schnobby (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pjt56 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basar (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done --ianaré (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great--Pianoplonkers (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shame that the sun wasn't shining. I don't like the blueish tone of the pic. I tried to reduce it (see pic right) --Amada44 (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer the original version. Etincelles (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Infantryman in 1942 with M1 Garand, Fort Knox, KY.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2010 at 23:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alfred T. Palmer - uploaded by me - nominated by me -- Scewing (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I'm constantly amazed at the quality and condition of some of the old color photographs maintained by the Library of Congress. This one really caught my eye. Scewing (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Conditional support -- Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- Is the color of his uniform correct ? Takabeg (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's wearing Army HBT first pattern uniform (photos)

Comment It seems much bluer. Takabeg (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support very good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 10:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that images of that kind are much interesting. --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basar (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks! ■ MMXX ^talk 23:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A snapshot of history. Very cool. Tiptoety ^talk 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kordas (sínome!) 19:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Completely undocumented restoration. Misrepresents the historic source. Durova (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info The image contains the retouched template tag with detail, and links to the original LOC image. The photo in no way misrepresents the historic source. Scewing (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the unedited version has never been uploaded for comparison. The strong oppose stands. This nomination cuts exactly the kinds of corners that hamper our negotiations with libraries and museums to gain access to more material. Institutions have actually backed out because they feared that editors would do exactly what you're doing. Very strong oppose. Durova (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question The retouching is described in quite general terms. Can you explain in more detail what the "histogram fix" and "contrast fix" did? My concern is especially with the colour of his uniform, which seems bluer here than in the original photo, the unretouched shot from an alternative angle, and the link provided above. -- Avenue (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to my concern above about colours and the fact that the original has not been uploaded. It is a nice photo, and I would support a version closer to the original. -- Avenue (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:The Dome Church at Les Invalides - July 2006.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2010 at 02:13:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by me -- Orsay Lover (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Orsay Lover (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Is it too picky to say that I expect an interesting or blue sky in FP's? --99of9 (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral No, it's not. At least not for such a famous monument in an easy to get location. --ianaré (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could do with some more foreground. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toulouse Capitole Night Wikimedia Commons.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2010 at 02:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Benh LIEU SONG - uploaded by Benh LIEU SONG - nominated by me -- Orsay Lover (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Orsay Lover (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it. --99of9 (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support et pourtant je le vois tous les jours! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very nice. Von.grzanka (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pjt56 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the lighting. Tiptoety ^talk 06:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very nice. Avenue (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kuvaly|d|p| 12:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- And what about the freedom of panorama issue in France? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Toniná Stela 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2010 at 13:24:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Simon Burchell - uploaded by Simon Burchell - nominated by Simon Burchell -- Simon Burchell (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simon Burchell (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, but I do not find the composition particularly interesting. Also, the sun light is harsh in certain areas and there is too big difference in the light levels due to the areas of shadow. Moreover, I find the wall in the background to the left mildly distracting. Independent of my review, I suggest you geocode the photo as it adds value. --Slaunger (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger, plus blown sky. --Cayambe (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nestor notabilis -Fiordland, New Zealand-8b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2010 at 23:42:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Featured picture on the English Wikipedia - created by Mark Whatmough - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull colours, boring composition. —kallerna™ 10:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to speculate that the parrot has evolved camouflaged plumage. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should imo be cropped --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean cropped from the right? Snowmanradio (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I like this parrot - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 20:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - hunched posture, somewhat bedraggled, distracting background near head. I like keas too, but this is not an impressive portrayal of one. No wow for me. -- Avenue (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:German, maple Violin.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2010 at 16:14:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pianoplonkers - uploaded by Pianoplonkers - nominated by Pianoplonkers -- Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A shame that I cannot support such instrument but the quality is not good enough, especially the masking and the noise. Keep trying, music is an excellent theme -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, problems with technical quality, no wow. —kallerna™ 12:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pianoplonkers (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catbells Northern Ascent, Lake District - June 2009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2010 at 23:25:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by DAVID ILIFF - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Already nominated on en.wiki, I think it's really great and a good addition to our FP gallery. ■ MMXX ^talk 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support makes me want to climb it Roke (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mmxx --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MMXX --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! Excellent! -- MJJR (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Cayambe (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Goood. —kallerna™ 16:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Etincelles (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow for me --Pudelek (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors, good composition, good light. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Heron tricol 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2010 at 03:13:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chrharshaw - uploaded by Chrharshaw - nominated by Chrharshaw -- Chrharshaw (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chrharshaw (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic pose and composition - the bird arranged itself even better than one could ever direct it! The drawback is that the focus seems to be on the front wing rather than the eye, and the DOF is not quite enough to reach the head sharply. --99of9 (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW photo! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - wonderful pose, nice composition. Focus not too bad but enough to leave me neutral. -- Avenue (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO not sharp enough. —kallerna™ 16:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is indeed a fantastic image... But unfortunately the head is not sharp. Sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no problem with the head. --Schnobby (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness. Basar (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a good shot--Pianoplonkers (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Image titles and file names: "For uniformity, lower case file name extensions are recommended". Next time please use .jpg in the lower case. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely composition, but not sharp enough. Maedin\^talk 07:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Je-str (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral lovely picture, but sharpness... --Pudelek (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love the image - great. However the sharpness of the head/neck really is not good enough for me I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hopetoun Falls NS.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2010 at 07:02:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is really a good example of how misleading a photograph can be. Travel 1km in any direction and you are in introduced pine plantation. Around the base of the waterfall there are lots of blackberries and other introduced weeds. I climbed to near the base of the falls, but spray meant I couldn't get a clear shot. --Noodle snacks (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Patriot8790 (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition. Unfortunately the long exposure time caused the ferns to become unsharp. Sorry! --Pjt56 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Pjt56. Sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pjt56. Composition works well though. -- Avenue (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and atmosphere. Good example of motion blur due to slow shutter speed. -- MJJR (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What does the NS in the title mean? 75.41.110.200 19:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the initials of the author. --Iotatau (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting something like "national scenic area". 75.41.110.200 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The initial name I'd chosen was taken, so for lack of a better one I added the initials of my user name. Noodle snacks (talk)

Oppose - per Pjt56 --Pudelek (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pjt56. --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have you got a fast-shutter photograph of this? Snowmanradio (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What does NS stand for in the image file name. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noodle snacks perhaps. Etincelles (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Etincelles (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me this looks more like a photograph taken with the wrong shutter speed than calculated use of a slow shutter speed. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tutufa bufo 2010 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2010 at 20:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by George Chernilevsky ^talk -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Red-ringed Frog Shell Tutufa bufo
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Patriot8790 (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely QI and VI, but not enough wow for FP. —kallerna™ 16:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna. --99of9 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- Etincelles (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Iotatau (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as kallerna said. Sorry. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! --kuvaly|d|p| 12:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. --Amada44 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Kallerna. --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Felis catus-cat on snow.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2010 at 22:31:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by Von.grzanka -- Von.grzanka (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Von.grzanka (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically good and well aesthetic. Nice portrait of cat --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cute kitty - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Etincelles (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice pose ■ MMXX ^talk 23:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cute. Tiptoety ^talk 06:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kawaï does not make a featured. inisheer (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very appealing. -- Avenue (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice :-)--kuvaly|d|p| 12:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please document the location - at least the country. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added the location for this picture. --Von.grzanka (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ye, very good posture and background (both difficult to get)! Quality is good enough. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support 99of9 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sergei Rachmaninoff LOC 30160 cropped.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2010 at 20:17:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created by the Bain News Service - uploaded and nominated by Etincelles -- Etincelles (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Etincelles (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info A black and white photo of russian composer Sergei Rachmaninoff, date of photo not recorded. Digitaly restored using GIMP to remove dust, scratches and blemishes. Also cropped to focus on Rachmaninoff. Original unedited version can be found here.
Support An image of cultural and historical value. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Umnik (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such a prolific and brilliant composer certainly deserves to feature on a featured image.--Egemont (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose Neutral~~ Composition. Too much cropped in comparison with the original. Maybe good for Internet purposes only, but not well for print, sorry. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you still oppose if the crop was adjusted? Etincelles (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with adjusted crop i will strong support this portrait --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now cropped, is it any better? Etincelles (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Very good result. Excellent composition now --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great image of a great pianist and composer--Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but an (approximate) date and location would be nice. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AM (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Strix varia CT.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2010 at 01:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but nothing of this picture seems to be very special to me. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good composition but harsh shadows and general too dark --Simonizer (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pianoplonkers (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rare shot Amada44 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is a bit extreme and the subject does not stand out well from the background. --99of9 (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure, it's dark, it used to be --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting and the background issue. --Manco Capac (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buddhabrot-W1000000-B100000-L20000-2000.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2010 at 19:04:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Combined Buddhabrot from 20.000 (purple), 100.000 (blue) and 1.000.000 (white) iterations

Info created by UnreifeKirsche - uploaded by UnreifeKirsche - nominated by UnreifeKirsche -- UnreifeKirsche (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- UnreifeKirsche (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cool!! Etincelles (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Impressive, and very attractive at small sizes. However, when I view it at full size some parts (e.g. on the forehead, and near the centre of the chest) seem glaringly "over-exposed" to me. Have you considered using an off-white shade for the 1 million iteration component? -- Avenue (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know, what you want to say. For me it's a matter of taste, I like this "over-exposed" look. I remember, that I knowingly decided white as the color, because an other color would go down in this picture. Unfortunaetly I can't easly change this look, even if I wanted. The problem is, that I combinded this image with GIMP, but I don't know anymore the gradient curves and exact colors I used and so on (a mistake, I know). If I do it again - I'm afraid - it'll become a different picture. I have found in the deeps of my harddisk an other gamma version, for the 1.000.000 iteration raw data, which is not this "over-exposed" - I'll upload it, in case you want to give it a try. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the explanation, and the new upload. While the white areas aren't quite to my taste, the nominated image qualifies as an FP in my view. -- Avenue (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Spetacular, a worthy FP--Pianoplonkers (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting!--kuvaly|t|c| 12:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO we have enough FPs like this. —kallerna™ 12:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. ZooFari 16:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Picoides pubescens m CT.jpg, not featured[edit]

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

Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A good shot, well done--Pianoplonkers (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good image!--Kuvaly (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I prefer natural backgrounds. —kallerna™ 12:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice --Pudelek (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, and I think the lighting could be improved. Basar (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other opposers. --99of9 (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the shadow seen on the bird feeder. Midhart90 (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black-crowned Night Heron 6929.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2010 at 00:58:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 00:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Dori - Talk 00:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. --99of9 (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice scene, but I would like to see it sharper. Your lens was 400 mm, what kind of? —kallerna™ 12:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one. --Dori - Talk 23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. :) I can recommend buying 300/2.8, could produce better result... But nevertheless, good shot! —kallerna™ 13:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I better learn how to use the gear I have. I have a feeling better photographers could get better sharpness out of this lens. Maybe I got a bad one, but I doubt it. Of course, if I came into some big money I might consider it :) --Dori - Talk 02:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This I like - well caught shot --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there could be more details, but anyway the composition and the background are good and the subject very interesting. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Von.grzanka (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Avenue (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunrise in the fog 7723.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2010 at 01:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good exposure --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support mysterious look. nice. Amada44 (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Schnobby (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - what can I say - I wish I'd taken it :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! --Karel (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. -- Avenue (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Where are the aliens coming out of their UFO? Very nice. --Manco Capac (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /{{{sig}}}

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

File:Jetski jump 40.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2010 at 19:22:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Herby -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info A jetski jump in the surf off Paignton beach in Devon, UK.
Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark, subject too far. --ianaré (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've re-uploaded it to deal with the darkness (& I agree with the comment). As to distance I intended the shot to show the action in context. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive sport photo in action, nice. support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but too dark and I don't like the background. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but too dark, bad lightning and background. —kallerna™ 12:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Etincelles (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Osmium crystals.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2010 at 22:53:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info the blue color is the real color from the heaviest metal: osmium. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Etincelles (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Von.grzanka (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Avenue (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 10:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:St Pere de Rodes.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2010 at 21:13:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Spet31 - uploaded by Spet31 - nominated by Spet31 -- Spet31 (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spet31 (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too few color and light contrasts. Not enough wow for a FP. Sorry. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overall too low quality, sorry. Much CA, blown white, noised. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, "This media file is uncategorized." —kallerna™ 21:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meat seller in Kabul.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2010 at 07:14:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Paulrudd -- Paulrudd (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paulrudd (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not a pleasant image. Etincelles (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As per guidelines : Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations...--Paulrudd (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per Etincelles--Pianoplonkers (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice colors and I like the action, but the background behind the carriage is too "messy" and makes the meat difficult to spot. Good Situation, but the composition ... Sorry. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting Rastrojo _(D•ES) 16:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting situation. --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interesting & useful. Takabeg (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great scene! Can someone fix the CA on the left of the meat? Also, I'm not sure but the (human) face looks a little out of focus. --99of9 (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CA fixed--Paulrudd (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support emotional look --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs contrast. —kallerna™ 12:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As UnreifeKirsche. --Karel (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've looked at this a time or two now. Do I "like" it - not relevant. Is it a good image - yes. Does it have "something else"? To me - yes - it is a well captured scene with a lot of interesting detail on (I like the red string tied on the front for example :)) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support From a country I don't think we have that many pictures from... It's even beautiful ! - Benh (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do the first two negative votes count? I don't think they are valid objections and if they are included in the vote count the photo won't be featured. --119.59.80.194 08:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but count... :( I like this photo too --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plectroctena sp ants.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2010 at 00:22:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Excellent macro --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Etincelles (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a few black spots that could be removed. Etincelles (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Much better, now Strong Support. Etincelles (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support after slight editing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good work ! - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Von.grzanka (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 05:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Two brave girls - Polar Bear Plunge 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2010 at 12:21:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dori - uploaded by Dori - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 12:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 12:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Etincelles (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors, good composition, movment, intresting situation. Well done. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Like an amateur photo, but interesting. Too much crop at bottom IMO --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why is it "Like an amateur photo"? (Aren't almost all our photos made by amateurs?) I agree about the crop, it's too tight. —kallerna™ 17:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per UnreifeKirsche --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good addition to people category. ■ MMXX ^talk 23:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice photo however, there is too much crop at the bottom and I feel that it is too amateur to be an FL, sorry--Pianoplonkers (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you mean FP? Yes there is too little space a the bottom, but I don't think you should reject it just because of that tiny problem. Etincelles (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice picture. Rejecting for that little space will be sad. Tanvir 10:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice colors, composition and DOF. A slight regret because of sharpness and the bottom crop. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI like it.--663h (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hejsa (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, nice and courageous girls but ordinary photo -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, the crop is too tight, it was the best I could do though as there were people around, and I only had a split second to take this shot. They posed for pictures as soon as they got near the ledge, but I didn't like those shots. --Dori - Talk 01:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dori -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A nice photo, but it seems to me a snapshot be Je-str (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Aktron (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support After some time of consideration I decided to be in favour of this picture; considering the circumstances, I think the quality is good enough for FP – and the composition is great! --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Böhringer (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support its not an insect, not a bird, not a cute animal,... do we have any similar FP's? :-) --Amada44 (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did they take their boots off before getting in the water? Snowmanradio (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, they didn't go in during this run, they just ran to the edge and posed for pictures. --Dori - Talk 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they did not go for a swim, then I find the image description and the file name are misleading, and I think that the documentation of this file is inadequate at FP level. "Two brave girls" would tend to suggest that they did go for a swim, but they are wearing boots. I think that they image description should clearly say that they just posed at the edge of the water and this would explain why they are wearing boots. I think that any mention of being "brave" should be removed from the file name, because it does tend to suggest that they went into the water and I have not heard any evidence to indicate that they did go in the water. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. I picked neither the name, nor the description, nor nominated the image. 2. "brave" could refer simply to being out in that cold with such a skimpy outfit, though I wouldn't characterize this or actually going in as brave, and I don't like the editorializing. In fact, I've since deleted the source image in flickr as it was just being seen as girls in skimpy outfit. I would be OK with this image being deleted from Commons too, but I don't feel like going through that process. --Dori - Talk 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Two brave girls - Polar Bear Plunge" : the good faith understanding of this to me is that they did go in the water. You could amend the image documentation and the file name even though someone else wrote them. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I could, but so could you at this point and you seem more interested to do so. As I mentioned my preference would be for the complete removal, not amendment. Also Polar Bear Plunge as you can tell by the capitalization, refers to the event as a whole, not the actual plunging. --Dori - Talk 02:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think the image description could make that clearer. I think that you are the best person to update the image documentation, because you were there. I do not want to guess at the circumstances or events surrounding the photograph. I think that the people in the photograph should probably described as women and not girls, but again I do not know much about the photograph. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice different photo --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well made women, but lack of foreground. Inadequate documentation. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looks like a mediocre snapshot to me. Kaldari (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Econt (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2010 at 23:22:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Many!! - edited by Mmxx - uploaded and nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX ^talk 23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This image is composite of 17 different images, explore it carefully and you will find many interesting things, besides putting this images together, I've also edited the background panorama to fit it to my requirements. (This is Commons world, when nobody notices them, Commons' images are having fun together ) ■ MMXX ^talk 23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some will probably object bu IMO this is a wonderfully created image. The only thing I would prefer edited is the reflection of the castle to the right which does not look as authentic as the original reflection beside it --Muhammad (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are right, for Egeskov Castle and Boat I used original reflections, so some of reflections looks different, but we can also say that they are caused by water movements. ■ MMXX ^talk 00:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing, definitely deserves to be FP. Etincelles (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support At the first glance I thought nice image, good colors, but then - Wtf? - the earth at the horizon? Then all the other details ... Really strange. I think it's funny. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support - Fantastic, a great idea and you have pulled it off well--Pianoplonkers (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very original :) --Von.grzanka (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work, usefull for artikels like photomontage. --Fibix (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Couldn't you find a plane flying in the right direction so that you didn't have to reflect it and mess up all the text/logo? --99of9 (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unfortunately no, this was the best thing I've found, I also had to reflect it because of light direction. ■ MMXX ^talk 00:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO it could be done better, for instance that pineapple looks really odd. —kallerna™ 12:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you see anything 'not odd' in this image? IMO this whole thing is odd. ■ MMXX ^talk 00:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good idea and nice realization. Well done --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting... --Patriot8790 (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is no point to these kind of images... GerardM (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work! -- MJJR (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Licensing issue (for example, File:Pineapple and cross section.jpg is under GFDL 1.2 only) and break of our guidelines (“Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable”). Oh, and that said, I see no point of viewing this photomontage featured. Diti the penguin — 23:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with license problem which I didn't noticed before, I can do one thing, I'll remove the "odd pineapple" I think other images are ok, only pineapple was licensed "GFDL 1.2 Only". ■ MMXX ^talk 00:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sharpness isn't corrected. For example... there is some grass in the background not very sharp and a statue/building with much higher level of detail is placed on it. Also some parts of the montage does not look very convincing (radar, left part of the reddish castle, reflection of the POTY tower...) --Aktron (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, good idea, but it can be done more convincingly than this. The castle on the right appears to be hovering over the ground. --Aqwis (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Aqwis --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just love this image - not sure it's a FP-image though... Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks everybody for your supports and constructive opposes, I've uploaded a new version and tried to fix some of mentioned problems. ■ MMXX ^talk 00:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO you've reflected a couple of items that should not be reflected. The Sydney Opera House is not symmetrical, so it doesn't seem right, and as commented before, the reflection messes up the text and logo on the airplane. My understanding of this image is that it is aiming for realism within a surreal rearrangement of objects. Impossible reflections mean you just miss the realism bar for me. I understand you've done them to make the lighting more consistent, but I think that means you just need to choose different images. --99of9 (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the other hand, if you can get this just right, I'd say it will be one of the best advertisements we've got for free licenses encouraging creativity. Congratulations. --99of9 (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --elemaki (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many objects. It destracts my focus. – Kwj2772 (msg) 12:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lamprotornis hildebrandti -Tanzania-8-Carschten.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2010 at 13:08:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noel Feans - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - retouched and nominated by kaʁstn --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I don't saw the candidate of the other version --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giano reggio emilia.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2010 at 08:02:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Paolo Picciati - uploaded by Paolo Picciati - nominated by Paolo Picciati -- Paolo Picciati (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Picciati (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting work of art and nice colours... but poor composition (the large wall at left is unattractive), tilted, unfortunate shadow and some chromatic aberration. The description should be expanded (name of the artist, year of creation, precise place) and the categorisation needs to be corrected. --Cayambe (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- informations have been added --Paolo Picciati (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly the crop/tilt are unfortunate --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

File:Orthodox church - dome - Mediaş (Mediasch, Medgyes).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2010 at 19:20:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fantastic. Etincelles (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, technical problems (burnt, underexposed, posterized, bit unsharp and noisy) - you could have tried HDR here. —kallerna™ 21:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps a less reddish colors and more sharp picture would convince me to vote for support... --Aktron (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pinicola enucleator f CT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2010 at 19:19:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Cephas (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful image. Etincelles (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could benefit from slight noise removal, but good shot. —kallerna™ 21:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I think I would take off a little bit more of the right side. Basar (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I support Simonizer's edit. Basar (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support very good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 00:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 15:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark and low contrast, I have made an edit, which i will support. You can find it here!

Alternative[edit]

Info Let's put Simonizer's edit up as an alternative since people are already declaring support. --99of9 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support support alternative --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is a nice image - good editing thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure! --Simonizer (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, very nice image. --Von.grzanka (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good edit – and of course good picture --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice edit and photo. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 10:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Pinicola_enucleator_f_CT_edit.jpg

File:Black-crowned Night Heron 9907.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2010 at 22:36:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination It's actually yellow-crowned, need to fix the name, plus I no longer think it's of good enough quality for FP. --Dori - Talk 12:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info nice picture, the only thing it is: it's noisy --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4)-edit3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2010 at 14:52:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by TonyTheTiger - uploaded by Finavon - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pianoplonkers (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don´t like the crop of this image, the pitcher seems to be throwing the ball against a wall --Andreas 06 (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't have what it takes for me, sorry --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the grandstand is a very distracting background for the face and the throwing hand. --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition, background disturbing. --Karel (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality compared to this previous FP File:Zack_Greinke_on_July_29,_2009.jpg. --99of9 (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20090714 Mavrovo panoramic summer.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2010 at 15:17:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ggia - uploaded by Ggia - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rastojo Je-str (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noisy, yet great colors. --Aktron (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support a little noisy, but photo is very nice --Pudelek (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rastrojo --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, distracting lines in bottom left. —kallerna™ 12:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Kallerna. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing light and composition. --che 12:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'impératrice Eugénie à la Marie-Antoinette, 1854, Franz Xaver Winterhalter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2010 at 19:43:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kaho Mitsuki - uploaded by Kaho Mitsuki - nominated by Kaho Mitsuki -- Kaho Mitsuki (Dis-moi) 19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kaho Mitsuki (Dis-moi) 19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Etincelles (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Same as it ? Takabeg (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my Winterhalter's official catalogue, colours are more autumnal than this image.--Kaho Mitsuki (Dis-moi) 13:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Colo(u)rs seem to be untrue to the original. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk

File:Modern kitchen gnangarra.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2010 at 11:20:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gnangarra - uploaded by Gnangarra - nominated by Gnangarra -- Gnan garra 11:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnan garra 11:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but there are some problems with sharpness, noise and chromatic aberration. Although the idea is good, I think you could have chosen a better perspective/crop (for example, the right and the lower part of the kitchen is cut off). --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many issues in there for this pic to be FP material... per Dein Freund der Baum, plus no extraordinary wow, perspective issues (or your oven door is severely bent out of shape...), white balance due to having two different main light sources (the blueish daylight plus the halogen spots). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 19:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lighting has come out very well - the outside light brightness is correctly matched to the inside light and the scene is evenly lit. You could match the inside light white balance to the outside light with gels. You could get my support with a reshoot at about f11 - it would fix the technical issues. Minor perspective problems are a fact of life for real estate photography, particularly without access to a wide tilt shift lens or shooting wider and cropping/correcting with software at the expense of quality. I feel all of the important kitchen items are present. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 10:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mt Anne from High Shelf Camp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2010 at 08:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support My tent was a few meters from here. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --Manco Capac (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also like it, I feel that the low cloud and sunlight from the morning sun added a WOW factor to the already interesting location! Bidgee (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice landscape, composition and colours. Also valuable: the species ids. --Cayambe (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small, but... Ok. —kallerna™ 10:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely. Durova (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 05:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunrise over Veterans Park 2420.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2010 at 01:17:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice --Pudelek (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO nothing special. The foreground and those utility poles are distracting. —kallerna™ 12:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What utility poles? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but (vertically) central composition doesn't convince me. --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respect the vote, but I'd like to point out that this is a typical composition for reflections. --Dori - Talk 23:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this. The balance might not be quite perfect but it is a good shot with a nice "feel" to it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Herby. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn't quite have it for me. Partly because the reflection is cut at the bottom. --99of9 (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good color, composition, sunburst, and mood. --Loadmaster (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. --Karel (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, =>  featured. Amir (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sandhill Cranes in flight 7960.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2010 at 00:59:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 00:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Dori - Talk 00:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Same thing than on the other nomination, I would like to see it sharper. You could clone that black spot in left. —kallerna™ 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Nice light, nice moment, good capture. However, not very sharp and that black spot on the left bothers. If you remove the spot, I might reconsider my vote. --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have cloned it out, but it was another bird in the distance, not a dust spot. --Dori - Talk 23:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think now the artistic and biological merits outweigth barely the sharpness problems: Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a very nice shot indeed. However somehow the composition just does work for me I'm sorry to say --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wadi Rum BW 20.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2010 at 18:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject is too dark to me (shadow) --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Astronotus ocellatus 2010 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2010 at 13:08:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by User:George Chernilevsky --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Tiger oscar (Astronotus ocellatus)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO too noisy & hazy, bad lightning, too dark. —kallerna™ 15:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 15:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No special composition, bad light and shadow --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nah. --Aktron (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear, good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brachypelma klaasi 2009 G01 cropped.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2010 at 10:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by User:George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Mexican Pink tarantula Brachypelma klaasi. Adult female.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Déjà vu... Sorry, it's ok photo, but the composition is boring and the quality of it is just decent, it could be much sharper. And we already have FP like this. —kallerna™ 12:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On Commons not exist any FP with Brachypelma klaasi. And try take better photo with very fast and very poisonous tarantula. However I don't expect other voting from You, Kallerna. Regards --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why you don't expect other voting from me? IMO this looks just the same to this and this. —kallerna™ 12:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, it is other tarantula (other biological ID). Secondly, look Your vote at this nomination. Any way, it still rare and nice photo IMO --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 15:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice footprints --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- Avenue (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wasservögel am Schwafheimer See.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2010 at 20:32:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by kaʁstn
Support as Nominator --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are very cute, but IMO it not good for FP. ■ MMXX ^talk 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition (too much snow or water, not many ducks :-), bad lighting (on smaller thumb it is quite hard to distinguish different birds) etc. --Aktron (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, underexposed. Exposure should be set for main subject, not background snow. --Loadmaster (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of Arms of New Zealand.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2010 at 18:32:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sodacan - uploaded by Sodacan - nominated by Connormah -- Connormah (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is long overdue. -- Connormah (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Generally a very good rendering, IMO. A few things that trouble me are Zealandia's (the woman's) expression, which seems to lack dignity, the sharp circular shadow on her cheek, and the lack of perspective in the stars on her flag and in the jewels on the lower sides of the crown (specifically the two embedded in crosses, which also seem too big, and the red ones). -- Avenue (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ --217.10.38.139 17:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please log on before voting --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Newdgate Dawn 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2010 at 06:12:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors with soft illumination. Like a picture --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any wow I am missing? --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is for you too decide, all I can say is that it was cold. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great exposure, composition and colors. Steven Walling 05:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rather drab, and I believe somewhat overexposed. --Dori - Talk 01:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Set nomination: St John's Ashfield Stained Glass: nave set, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2010 at 05:02:00 (UTC)

Crucifixion
John the Baptist and Paul
Faith and Hope
James and John

Info stained glass artist unknown, otherwise all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom -- 99of9 (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support only the very nice jpg-images. My T-Online Browser (Standard) do not work with the png-images. Every moving of the enlarged png-image destroys the enlarged image. I can only move the enlarged jpg-images to see them.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info I didn't realise some wouldn't be able to see the PNG versions! Perhaps a brief description is in order. The png versions are made directly from the jpg version, with only the stained glass (and lead-lining) shown. The rest of the masonry and window frame has been made transparent so that it can be displayed against any colour background (e.g. plain black). The dimensions of the png versions were reduced so that they would fit just within the 12.5 million pixel wiki limit for generating a thumbnail. --99of9 (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some portions of the stained glass windows are too dark to clearly differentiate between the colors. Midhart90 (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the feedback. I agreed with you, so have adjusted the gamma point of three of the images. The windows do have a wide range of brightness - the originals were already blended from 3 exposure settings. --99of9 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corroding machinery at old White Island sulphur mine.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2010 at 23:47:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Avenue - uploaded by Avenue - nominated by Avenue -- Avenue (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Shows the corrosive effect of volcanic gases. (The mine was abandoned in 1914 after a lahar killed all the workers - but not their cat!) -- Avenue (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting phenomena --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the idea a lot but I think the crop is a little tight --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The tight crop, on the left at least, was to avoid another part intruding that I felt would spoil the composition. -- Avenue (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Composition should be cleaner, and the lighting is too harsh . --Dori - Talk 01:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Felis silvestris silvestris.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2010 at 00:40:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice shot --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I knew Garfield was a wildcat. :) -- Von.grzanka (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Es ist der ausgezeichnete Kater! = Excellent cat! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Etincelles (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Avenue (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support He's cute :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent!! -- MJJR (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cat is fine but no WOW to me --Pudelek (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 08:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love cats but this just is not FP to me I'm afraid :( --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait. ZooFari 16:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support cute – Kwj2772 (msg) 12:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FriedC (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Internet hardly needs more cat pictures, but this is a great one. ;) Steven Walling 05:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frontal lobe animation.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2010 at 06:22:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Was a bee - nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I never knew there was a free-license database of body part geometries! Fantastic result. -- 99of9 (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting scientific rendering. Jacopo Werther (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question In which lobe is the anterior section of cingulate gyrus part of? See File:Frontal lobe.gif. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for checking this! According to this [4] it is in the limbic lobe, so this version of the animation is correct. I am not knowledgeable in this area, so I've passed the query on the the author's talk page. --99of9 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two styles about that region(Anterior cingulate cortex, ACC). First is the way that treats ACC as a part of frontal lobe(For example [5]). Second is the way that treats ACC as a part of limbic lobe (For example [6]). Although both ways are used, I draw that region as limbic lobe because two famous reference books, an electronic version of Talairach and Tournoux(1988)[7] and Ono(1990)[8], treats ACC as limbic lobe. Additionally Brodmann area graphics uploaded by en:User:Washington irving, for example File:Brodmann_areas_17_18_19.png, also drawn based on Talairach(1988). Thank you.--Was a bee (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the two different classifications of the anterior cingulate cortex should be briefly explained in the image description. Also the articles on the English wikipedia could do with expanding for better understanding of the various neuroanatomy images available on commons. The absence of a very good article in any of the language wikipedeas should not affect this FP nomination; nevertheless, this does highlight the need for good image documentation on commons. I think that this image should not be promoted to FP until its documentation is adequate. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Info added to the image page. --99of9 (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the image documentation is substantially improved and I have done some tidy up edits to the image description. I no longer have any objections to this becoming a FP. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Snowmanradio and 99of9 for your notification and editing. Description page becomes clear and very informative :> --Was a bee (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but nothing special. —kallerna™ 10:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 43 images like this in the category Category:Animations using BodyParts3D polygon data. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Almost all by the same author, so you can't count that against him/her! I would have considered putting them up as a set, but there were too many. Instead I chose a representative that I thought had the highest quality, the highest value (half cut away), and the least obscure brain region. Is there an image that you think is better representative? --99of9 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one that is not different in different classifications. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Plectrophenax nivalis CT.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2010 at 17:35:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy and just a few of the birds a sharp, sorry --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough contrast between the subject and the background. Steven Walling 05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow Tiger Moth Góraszka.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2010 at 22:37:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciej Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Etincelles (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Piękny samolot Nice! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Yellow Subastrine". :) --Von.grzanka (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please add english description. Sorry, IMO the lightning is bad. —kallerna™ 10:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your wish is my command. Wolf (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks! —kallerna™ 14:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not striking enough for me. It's probably the lighting and cloud position that limit it. --99of9 (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Young wild boar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2010 at 21:13:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Umnik (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a shot! --Schnobby (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support oink oink. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Doucus (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support echt Wildsau --Böhringer (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Von.grzanka (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 00:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Dori - Talk 01:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The poor dear looks cold. Tiptoety ^talk 07:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agree with Alchemist. MartinD (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Blick auf den Römerberg - 2010-02-16.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2010 at 22:23:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ratopi - uploaded by ratopi - nominated by ratopi -- Ratopi (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ratopi (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - tilted, perspective issues, distracting objects in the shade, horrible JPG artefacts when viewed at 100%. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - perspective issues, noise and too many interesting subjects in shade, unfortunately. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Have to agree with Yerpo & MattiPaavola this is not FP material. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition and lighting, generally too noisy. Steven Walling 05:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:A nurse vaccinates Barack Obama against H1N1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2010 at 02:21:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by White House (Pete Souza) / Maison Blanche (Pete Souza) - uploaded by TCY - retouched by 99of9 - nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great "action" shot. Not many such official pics are provided at nice high-res. -- 99of9 (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - in case you haven't noticed the image is quite blurry. The only thing not blurry in the image is Obama's face, but there are far nicer images of his face that can be featured, this one is proposed because of the vaccination and that hasn't been shown properly.--Avala (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support An ordinary activity, but not an ordinary image. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good picture. Technical quality is nice and the subject is interesting - not again another macro of a bird/flower or a panorama of lake and so on :-) --Aktron (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OK it is "not again another macro of a bird/flower or a panorama of lake and so on" however to me that is all it has going for it. No wow (maybe "ow" though) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background. —kallerna™ 13:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Herby. --Karel (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Avala and Herby. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting motive and good quality; I don't think that the background is distracting, it just shows the natural medical surrounding area where injections are given – a pro to me --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very fine picture. Showing what needs to be shown. I agree with Dein Freund der Baum. -Von.grzanka (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --elemaki (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weak) Good situation and subject, but technically bad cropping, bad focus/DOF, and bad color balance. --Loadmaster (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green heron 0060.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2010 at 22:33:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 22:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 22:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pose. -- Avenue (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a tiny but perceptible violet fringe (CA) surrounding the caudal feathers, which can easily be removed. --Cayambe (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The bird is nice and I like the pose but the white background is not great. --Cephas (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Basically all channels off the top of the histogram. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Dori - Talk 12:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bruges road.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2010 at 15:26:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wolfgang Staudt from Saarbruecken, Germany - uploaded by Rocket000 - nominated by me -- Orsay Lover (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Orsay Lover (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - excellent light, but I think the unfortunate top crop and CA don't make it featured. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very beautiful, but heavy CA --Simonizer (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice early morning picture of the Goezeput street in Bruges, full of atmosphere. But oversaturated colors and CA, especially on the cobblestones. -- MJJR (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but oppose per Matti I'm afraid --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Matti. —kallerna™ 10:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because the many opposes: it isn't soooo bad --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hermetia illucens Black soldier fly.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2010 at 17:58:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. I've got a question: what is that white thing under it's wing? --Von.grzanka (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what it is called but all flies have it. I think User:Lycaon might know. --Muhammad (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are these en:Halteres? --Von.grzanka (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, thanks --Muhammad (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. Please take the red-eye reduction mode in your flash-menu away. The original colour of the eye in this image is destroyed.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the out of focus object in the foreground is very distracting in my opinion. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Agree with Captain-tucker about the foreground but otherwise it is a good photopgraph. Bidgee (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the two above. Wolf (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Informative picture. The out of focus foreground does not disturb me, and maybe even add to the quality of the pic. Eman (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That foreground covers small part of one leg (and it's bit small), sorry. —kallerna™ 10:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack above. --Dori - Talk 01:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:STS-130 EVA3 Nicholas Patrick 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2010 at 18:36:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded and nominated by Ras67 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info NASA astronaut Nicholas Patrick, STS-130 mission specialist, participates in the mission's third and final session of extravehicular activity (EVA) as construction and maintenance continue on the International Space Station.
Support As nominator -- Ras67 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Von.grzanka (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of contrast between space suit and clouds. --99of9 (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've seen better photos like this. —kallerna™ 10:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --myself488 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Piper Cub Góraszka.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2010 at 22:52:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciej Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice quality and composition --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good exposure. --Dori - Talk 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. Maedin\^talk 11:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]