Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2009

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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


File:Thomas Bresson - Branchies (by).jpg[edit]

Fish gills

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is below the size requirements Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Apart from being small, the photograph is also not very well lit for a histological coupe. Proper description and categorisation are also lacking (which animal, scale, colouring method). Lycaon (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christmas2004inMedellín.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2009 at 15:02:40
Medellín River during Christmas 2004 

result: 6 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --D-Kuru (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Convento Cristo December 2008-10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2009 at 01:03:07
SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Oppose I would have taken this picture in vertical format in order to get the balustrade complete into the ground.Even at the expense of cutting off the sides. Looks incomplete. Cropped too tightly up on top. Or back up or take it with a wider angle. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Convento Cristo December 2008-9.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2009 at 00:19:55
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Convento Cristo December 2008-2.jpg[edit]

Original Alternative
Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2009 at 00:15:15 Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2009 at 14:08:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION SHORT DESCRIPTION

Original, not featured[edit]

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, featured[edit]

result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isuien Nara21nt3200.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2009 at 08:13:28
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brush for the lead2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2009 at 18:12:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ukiyo-e dragon 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2009 at 23:01:17
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coca-Cola-Truck.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2009 at 04:07:33
Coca Cola Christmas Truck 

result: 4 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A vespula insect is eauting. 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chrysomya_albiceps_eating.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2009 at 19:56:29
Chrysomya fly eating 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keelung coast detail amk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2009 at 20:27:30
A rock formation at the coast of Keelung 

result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great Wave off Kanagawa2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2009 at 20:02:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Comment I agree with the Aktron's principle, but this is an very high quality scan. We should really have a "fast-track" for technically perfect scans of internationally known artwork. We can't evaluate them the same way. Or should we try? Should we ignore the fact that this is a well known painting and try to evaluate it's effectiveness in illustrating the ocean? Or do we evaluate the technical quality of the scan? I think there should be an entirely different process then FPC for this kind of image. In the meantime, I will abstain from voting in this discussion. --J.smith (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the scan wasn't quite technically perfect. That's one of the reasons I put hours into restoring this. On a file this size restoration takes a lot of labor. Ideally that labor should seem invisible to anyone but another restorationist, so I'll take that abstention as high compliment. Durova (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Haros (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As per J.smith. Abstaining on this one. I think a separate "historical" section might be good. Where more emphasis is placed on the quality of the scan, etc.
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blind accordion player.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2009 at 23:45:59
blind accordion player 

result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turkish trenches at Dead Sea2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 01:05:17
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset behind palm trees.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 03:02:04
Palm trees at sunset 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Electricity Pylon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 13:31:24
Lattice steel pylon 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC) (rule of the 5th day)[reply]

File:El sagrario.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 14:25:43
el sagrario church 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 15:01:37
barter 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Convento Cristo Decemebr 2008-18.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 16:13:12
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruta 60 Argentina Paso san Francisco.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 16:59:28
San Francisco Pass

  • So, you can tell me what do you thing is wrong with it... Lucash (talk)
  •  Info I think the main subject (Ruta 60) is not well exposed here since the picture is dominated by the grass and the rocks. Besides, I don´t find it that special. --Georgez (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Couch-sol (by).OGG, not featured[edit]

Not featured per out of scope (absence of guidelines). Lycaon (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nothoscordum bivalve flower macro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 20:36:20
Simple and small grass' flower

  • Can you explain to me what is wrong with the background? Lucash (talk)
  • Sorry, but as Macro definition in wikipedia: "On 35 mm film (for example), the lens is typically optimized to focus sharply on a small area approaching the size of the film frame". So, it's normal in macros to have an blurry background. (Spanish: En general, cuando se toman fotos en modo macro, el fondo esta totalmente borroso o fuera de foco. Eso hace que destaque el objeto principal, en este caso la flor). Lucash (talk) Lucash (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I don't know (yet) what it is, I'm not too happy with the current identification as Nothoscordum bivalve. The filaments of the stamina are too wide, the anthers should be yellow (not only the pollen) and also this plant flowers March to May, while the exif says November. Guess we need a specialist of North American Alliaceae. Lycaon (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo was taken in Mendoza, Argentina. I have asked my brother (Agronom) and he said should be this one as it's very often there. Anyway we should wait for another opinion.About date, March to May is spring in the north side of the world, while september to december is spring in the south part of the world. I believe that's why. Lucash (talk)
  • Ah, that would at least account for the flowering period (Giving a location (preferably co-ordinates) avoids these discussions ;-)). Do you have pictures of the leaves, did you notice the smell of the leaves, did you see the bulb? Answers to these questions could also help. Lycaon (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmm...I'm afraid I didn't do anything of these, but I know the person which has seeds of it. I should wait untill april/may for them to flower... GeoLocation = done. Thanks!Lucash (talk)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lophophanes cristatus Luc Viatour 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 20:55:17
SHORT DESCRIPTION

L'exemple est trop accentué et la lumière du flash est franchement moche, rien a voir avec la lumière naturelle du couché de soleil sur ma photo ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Translation: “The example is too marked and the flashlight is frankly ugly, nothing to do with the natural sunlight on my [Luc Viatour's] photo ;)” →Diti the penguin — 23:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Je teste un logiciel raw en phase de développement. Ce qui explique la disparition des exifs. Je viens de corriger les exifs sont là. --Luc Viatour (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paisaje en Pampas-Tayacaja.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2009 at 22:26:05
Paisaje en Pampas-Tayacaja.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the images is below size requirements and lacks details Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laguna artificial en Pampas-Tayacaja.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2009 at 22:32:10
Laguna artificial.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the images is below size requirements and lacks details Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Incatrail in Peru.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2009 at 00:14:57
Caminos del Inca. Im Orginal erhaltener Teil des Incatrail nach Machu Picchu in Peru, selbst fotografiert.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the images is below size requirements and is overexposed Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should probably be noted the major problem is size: The over-exposure is used for interesting artistic effect, but the small size means this couldn't, for instance, be printed out and put on your wall with the needed detail to look good in that use. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LilacBreastedRollerCropped.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2008 at 20:52:58
Lilac Breasted Roller 

Result: delist = 3 and 1 keep = not delisted Lycaon (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hawaii turtle 2.JPG, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2008 at 17:56:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info I've started the process that I hope will end up with the delisting all FP taken by me. It is my way of expressing my strong disagreement with the FPC criteria as they written now, and with inability of some reviewers to follow very few right criteria that are there now. In other words I do not believe in the purpose of FP any more, and would not like my images to be a part of this. I'm going to nominate my images for delisting one image in a time in order do not disturb the order on FPC. Some people say the FPC process is working. Well IMO it does not.I hope the Commons community will agree that the images of a photographer, who does not believe in the purpose of FPC should be delisted. Thanks.(Original nomination)
  •  Delist -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I dont think that the opinions of a photographer have any connection to the quality, value and wow-factor of a picture. This is one of the best pictures contributed to Commons so it clearly became a FP and it still is, imo --Simonizer (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - Though I may simpathize with your frustation in not recognizing in FPC your own values and criteria (I know what I'm talking about), I'm sure this is not the best way to deal with the problem, as it won't have significant impact and will cause to you further discomfort (to say the least). Why not go on trying to influence things from inside? We all know your talent and there is no doubt that you still have much to share. As for delisting your pics, I'm sorry but they don't belong to you any more... Cheers. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as Simonizer and Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I agree you are not approaching the problem correctly. I don't know if you are saying the FP's don't have the quality they should, but I feel that is the case. I don't know they best way to improve the process. I just submitted one for delisting and uploaded another to replace a weaker photo, and hope we can all work together make this work. Tomfriedel (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I need to clarify my position. Tom, I cannot care less about size and quality of the pictures nominated to become FP as long as the pictures have value.Sure, it is better, when valuable images are also of a great quality and of a big size, but IMO it should be not nearly as important as the value of the image. For example there's a very interesting nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thomas Bresson - Punaise mangeant une chenille sur des orties (by).jpg, which is getting opposed because of the size. I see everything that is there to see even in a thumbnail. Why in a world oppose a rare insect action shot only because the size is small? You just nominated a beautiful bird photographed in Botswana in a wild for delisting and nominated a very common pigeon for FP. The pigeon image is good, great quality (I do not like the crop), but it does not matter to me. FP has already one pigeon featured, and as far as I am concern it is one too many. In other words your pigeon might pass (I wish you good luck!), and it is precisely why I would like my images to get delisted. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the argument that the images no longer belong to Mila is true, it is also true that they do not necessarily have to appear here or be featured. She is not requesting that the images be deleted from Wikipedia, but rather, to be delisted from this particular forum that she no longer has confidence in and is in strong disagreement with its policies and the opinions of certain individuals whose taste, or lack of it, have managed to establish photographic values that are contrary to photographic evaluation practices and criteria and who, in my opinion, are causing more harm than good to this effort. At the very least her wish as an author should be complied with as a courtesy and at the same time serve notice of the fact that a very valuable and quality contributor is being run out of town by what she considers unfair and rude treatment by some. Now, if people want to turn a blind eye to this, so be it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about value, and remember supporting Mdf's Trogon photo because it was a rare and difficult to shoot bird shot at 1000mm, but it was not selected because some said the branch was too big. Regarding the Lilac-breasted Roller, you can easily see with Flickr or elsewhere there is no shortage of photos of this bird. Someone we have to balance value, technical, and artistic considerations. And value is by far the most difficult, I think. For that reason I never comment on anything that isn't an animal photo, where all of whatever expertise I have is. Tomfriedel (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tom, if you see a better image of a subject on Flickr and this image has a free license, of course you could upload it to Wikipedia, nominate an old one for the delisting, but if there are better images somewhere on the NET that are not free, IMO there's no point to mention them here. Tom, it is very good that you avoid commenting on the subjects that you feel you have no expertise about. I'm afraid that at least some reviewers here do comment on the subjects that they have never seen no only in the real life, but not even a image of the subject bedore they saw a nomination, yet they believe they could comment on the subject and on the quality of an image.For example here's what Lycaon said while opposing my image Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Anemonejelly.jpg :"It is a rare shot, because this is not the anemone's standard food, but a chance catch and so rather an anecdotical picture". How could he know that there is a time, when thousands of brought to shores by the wind and are caught by sea anemones. So my image is rare, but for sure not "anecdotical". One more example: what Benh, Sanchezn, MichaelMaggs,Beyond silence and others could possibly know about sunset mirages and green flashes to comment on my images? Sometimes it feels as some reviewers vote as they are robots, like they were programmed to oppose images that are less than 2 megapixels and they do, no matter what an image is about and what value it could have. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting only on one of your points, I do think it is worthwhile to point out a superior commercial or non-free photo, because I don't think Wikimedia should work on a lower standard than the rest of the world. It might also help show some of the voters what they should be looking for. We have photos that are at the highest level of quality (however that is defined, some combination of value, or technical or artistic merit), and I would like for Wikimedia to only feature those. Since different people value these three criteria differently, maybe the photo must exceed in all three. And there goes the pigeon. Tomfriedel (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO one should be careful trying to point out a superior commercial or non-free photo while opposing a nomination. I probably could find better images of many, many, many current subjects represented in FP now.BTW you reminded me a story: Once I nominated sunset mirage image on English Wikipedia. Of course it got opposed and I challenged opposes to find a better image anywhere on the NET. In few days user Pengo got back to me with a "better" image he found on Flickr. Guess what, it was another my own image, which was not better at all. To me this story proves one more time that one might be better off, if one avoids opposing the images he has no expertise about. I'd also would like to comment on one more of your points, please.IMO because Wikipedia is encyclopedia and not high quality photo contest, value of the image should be the very first criteria. I also believe that FP will only benefit, if there will not be so many similar, almost the same images as we have now. Sometimes it is getting really funny like for example with those two Aquila heliaca photographed by the same photographer in the same zoo on the same day.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Milla, keep your shirt on :-) Delisting is no place to get attention for solving problems/anger with FP as everybody more or less has. We have a very nice discussion page for this - or develop/create your own diligence badges like Slaunger has done with Valued Pictures. IMO - if you donate or nominate your pictures it's unpolite to backtrack this - cling together swing together I have to say. I can remember a time when you can't get enough in nominating lots of your pictures where a few justifiably gained consensus and you was happy with that - you should have considered it carefully before. --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Richard. I agree it is not the right place to disscuss the problems, yet I believe we did have a nice discussion here. IMO to call me nominating my own image for delisting "unpolite" is a litlle bit too strong (besides I was not the one, who nominated this particular image on FPC in the first place, if you'll be kind enough to notice), but, if you believe it was unpolite, I am sorry. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, Richard, there's no offense at all. As I said you are right, and besides you did so much good for me in my time of need that now, if you say something like "uncivil" or ""unpolite" (I believe the right way to say is "impolite"), I simply consider these as friendly remarks, and of course I do know you :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep   ■ MMXXtalk  07:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - I sympathise with Mbz1, but these images have been awarded a (deserved) high accolade by the Commons community and I think it would be unfair to withdraw it, implying that the author's vote/opinion is worth more than the rest of the community's. Anrie (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep --ianaré (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I vote for keeping, even I can understand the feelings of Mbz1. I thing, that everybody, who is workig with wikipedia for longer time has somtimes similar feeling of frustration and inability to enforce his own ideas. For example, from the year 2005 when I have started on Czech wiki I stopped my cuntribution two times for some one, two monts. But wikipedia was stronger than my frustration and I came back. And this is, what I like to advice to Mbz1. Take some wikivacation. 2 weeks, months, its up to you. And you will see that you will be back. Your images are really good and valuable and I believe, that we shall see many, many others from your camera. --Karelj (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep All I see is a good image. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep A great image. Whether an image is listed as a Featured picture is based upon the opinions of the community, not the creator, especially where the purpose of the delist request is to make a point. Adambro (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From all our disagreements of the last few days I could say that I agree with you on this one only, Adambro. I should not have been making my point with this nomination the way I did. Sorry about this! Besides it was one of a very few of my images that was supported by Lycaon, and for this fact alone it should have been preserved for the eternity, and not nominated for the delisting :) I believed the nomination time has expired a long time ago, but, if it is not, I  , and I'm sorry I took so much of everybody time, although I still believe that we had a rather interesting discussion, which involved some users, who usually do not go to the project talk page to discuss the issues.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:East Hempfield Township.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2009 at 08:32:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 8 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:335 place D'Youville Montreal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2009 at 22:32:43
335 place D'Youville Montreal 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anhinga.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2009 at 22:51:11
Anhinga 

result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Ice12 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Ice on the ground in forest 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alfeniques 5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2009 at 21:29:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Comment "No wow"? Please provide a real reason for opposing this image. Redmarkviolinist (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Couch-soleil (by).OGG, not featured[edit]

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roxy Theatre.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2009 at 13:03:04
Leeton Roxy Community Theatre

 Comment The picture is technically fine, but a Featured picture must have something more, that something is called wow. It's very hard to define, and even harder to capture; it's what makes an image stand out from the crowd, what elevates it into 'great' not just good. You'll know it when you see it. I can't give many tips on how to achieve it; I'm not a photographer, and it's the sort of thing you discover for yourself. Try shooting something uncommon, or perhaps an interesting or unusual shot of something ordinary. 202.12.233.23 10:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The building itself is unusual (Design of the outside is the one in New South Wales with all the other theatres built with a different design and look), Also and art deco design which not many art deco theatres are left in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It's the ability of an image to create emotion and feeling in a viewer that elevates it to Featured status. Will members of the general public have any reaction to this image? Judging by the reactions of the viewers thus far, it appears not. Sounds to me like this picture would be more appreciated in 'Valued Images', which recognises images which are the best example of their kind.203.35.135.133 12:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment No where in Commons:Featured picture candidates does it say that it's all about emotion and feeling. It's about value and there is no other photograph like this (Yes it needs some corrections) nor is there a building like this in the world or possibly Australia. Bidgee (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent)  Comment Like I said, I'm no expert, hell, I'm not even a registered member of Commons. But as as someone who has watched the ebb and flow of nominations, I can say that emotion and feeling do play a large role in the selection of some pictures. In Commons:Image guidelines, it states that pictures "must have a wow factor", that is, the ability to make the viewer feel something when seeing the image. Your image is unique, and technically sound; I don't deny that, indeed, it's a very fine picture, and you yourself state it's value. All I can do is recommend Commons:Valued images.203.35.135.136 13:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment How come are there some featured photos on Commons that have no WOW factor at all and were selected due to the 'uniqueness' of the image? Valued images is not the same as Featured pictures and don't seem to have 'Photo of the Day' rights. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is a well exposed and well composed valuable picture. However to make it featured I would first ask to correct the huge chromatic aberrations. Second point is mentioned by Dschwen. Thrird: Not enough wow factor for me. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Broadway tower edit4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2009 at 15:15:40
Broadway tower

Without the person, the left part of the picture is just useless, empty space that detracts from the composition. --Aqwis (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Without the person, the picture loses the sense of perspective that made it so interesting in the first place.202.12.233.23 10:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Scale is what makes the original picture so powerful. JalalV (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose simple crop, takes 10 seconds to do this. Image does not have any purpose compared with the other versions of the image, i simply uploaded it to save commons from a trash 640px version of the image of the year. This nomination is needless, close it and delete the image as it is superseeded by other versions and not used anywhere. --Martin H. (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I've already seen this tower somewhere on Commons (I mean a nomination). What is the reason to nominate it again? Are we going to estabilish a picturnality cult? ;-) --Aktron (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bismuth-crystal.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2009 at 16:44:30
Bismuth crystal 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ciconia ciconia

Storks are notoriously less sharp than penguins. --JY REHBY (discuter) 06:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Grande-lune--20080213 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2009 at 17:28:12
Moon 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Belle dame (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2009 at 17:36:47
Vanessa cardui

  •  Oppose for the file's inappropriate file name. I would also have liked to see the background blurred out a bit more, to bring out the foreground. This could be taken care of with a narrower DOF or even in post-op. J.smith (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont have an issue with including the username within the file name though I do prefer it at the end, its a good way to ensure unique names when uploading using tools like Commonist. It also make its easier to find off wiki uses, especially at some sites who are renouned for false copyright claims. Gnangarra 12:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The filename also completely screws up the sorting in categories and makes our internal search tools worthless. J.smith (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frozen pinecone.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2009 at 04:34:35
A frozen pinecone of the Pinus Strobus variety, or Eastern White Pine. The cone was coated in ice following an ice storm in the midwest.

 Comment Honestly? No wow? Please provide a real reason why you are opposing this image aside from "no wow". I've looked back on all your other opposes, and all you say is "no wow for me". IMO this vote shouldn't be counted and in the other images that he placed comments in because he does not provide a valid reason for opposing. --Redmarkviolinist (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a reason is not really required, fp is a vote not a consensus. Also English is not the first language for a lot of users on commons, some might not speak it at all and people might use simple phrases instead of well expressed sentences. -- Gorgo (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graffiti i baggård i århus 2c.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2009 at 11:10:55
Graffiti in a back yard in Århus

 Comment "No wow"? Please provide a real reason for opposing this image. Redmarkviolinist (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What aspect ratio would you expect a panoramic to be? J.smith (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Support A lot of wow for me - and only a panoramic image can show that this place is really surrounded by graffiti. --Chmehl (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Moved support to color corrected re-stitched version. --Chmehl (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restitched version:

 Comment A new version that had restitched is uploaded. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)  Comment This version is better stitched, the bands in the sky are not too obvious anymore. But I prefer the warmer colors of the original version. Maybe you can color correct this version a little bit? --Chmehl (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => /not/ featured. JalalV (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Color corrected:

 Comment I hope that will do, but my vision is not the best. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. JalalV (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Agnes.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2009 at 16:54:21
Lake Agnes 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mostar, Stari Most at night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Original
Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2009 at 11:07:49
Stari Most in Mostar at night

Original[edit]

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rotated[edit]

Rotated
Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2009 at 02:25:07
Stari Most in Mostar at night
 CommentI haven't image stabilizer (Nikkor 18-70) and I used a Manfrotto tripod. Noise reduction wasen't necessary, Nikon D50 at ISO200 is not noisy. For that matter in this picture I came to like this pleasant softness, its satisfying me ...but it seems disturbing for You. So I understand You --BáthoryPéter (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's the lacking border sharpness at open aperture f/3.8 @ 27mm on this lens which causing this effect. MB was only a assumtion as the exifs or lens details in the description aren't really expressive :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Geophagus brasiliensis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Young Geophagus brasiliensis 

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => /not/ featured. JalalV (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bihoreau Gris.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2009 at 22:33:09
Black-crowned Night Heron

  Check out my other nomination here. Acarpentier 18:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shakedown 2008 Figure 1a.jpg, featured[edit]

Original - Snowboard figure at the Shakedown 2008 Alternative - Vignetting reduced
Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2009 at 00:30:27
 Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2009 at 11:05:00
Snowboard figure at the Shakedown 2008 Alternate - Vignetting reduced

Original[edit]

Yes, it is snow. But since there are only a couple of small dots present, they are not functional in this picture and rather annoying. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate[edit]

result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate 2 - Vignetting corrected

Alternate 2[edit]

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. JalalV (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pelican - barker inlet.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2009 at 08:55:17
Australian Pelican 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wonder eye.png, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2009 at 13:03:09
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Comment Lol, the reason I saved it as a PNG file is because my camera only saves jpegs (no raw file), and PNG was the most universal lossless format I could think of. This is a simple crop to focus on the eye. I didn't realize the original was so interesting to people! JalalV (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ✓ Done
result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. JalalV (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black soldier fly.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2009 at 21:30:57
Black Soldier fly

Image:Catedral de Pampas.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2009 at 22:40:08
Parroquia San Pedro de Pampas 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

file:birdsniper.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2009 at 10:04:41
birdsniper 

result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Octopus marginatus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2009 at 17:52:09
Octopus Intelligence 

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate[edit]

result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Even though this is featured, I would still recommend uploading the original and asking for suggestions. A higher resolution picture would benefit all of us. If you can get a better quality version, it is easy to "delist and replace" with your new version at a later time. JalalV (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SilvrettaNova 11.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2009 at 17:51:48
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. JalalV (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Washington Carver2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2009 at 19:48:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Centruroides infamatus 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2009 at 04:57:26
Centruroides infamatus

  •  Comment Dear Lycaon: Just for your information. Body from head to beginning of tail: ½ inch… baby scorpion… Shutter speed: ½ sec, aperture: f16, 50mm macro lens. So, if an observant photographer/critic adds up that information, the conclusion is that additional DOF is difficult to get because 1) macro lenses inherently have shallow DOF, it is plain physics, you should know, you claim to be a scientist; 2) f16 is a very small aperture that will yield DOF, however, due to the fact that for illustration purposes, a diagonal plane (so not paralllel to the chip lane) was chosen as to render the most complete information about this bug, so macrolly speaking, even though the distance between the front part of the subject to the furthest part is small, in macro terms it is large. 3) In macro photography DOF is always sacrificed at one point. What really matters is the sum of the elements. 4) Finally, you really must be joking about the bug not being (yet) clean! And BTW, this is another bug, not the previous one. Other one died… :o( --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eichenberg 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2009 at 09:07:34
Eichenberg

ja, ich weiss es grenzt oder ist fast schon Kitsch :-)) --Böhringer (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kitsch ist doch was schönes. --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. JalalV (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2009 Anti Israel Protest Tanzania.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2009 at 16:21:29
Anti-Israel protest

  • Honestly, I'm sure that some people will not support/oppose for political reasons... and in my opinion comments here are most non sense for this kind of picture... --88.208.235.52 02:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this a very poor reaction, I dont read much in the way of good faith and suggest that the nominator leave such observations to uninvolved parties, if there are any concerns about any review I suggest you ask for someone at COM:AN to have a look. Gnangarra 12:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Wow, what an inteligent comments! Yeah remove the signs, remove all the people, and remove everything else, then put a beautifull sky background and it could be the picture of a sky!!! --88.208.235.52 20:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment *Sigh* What I meant was, it's not a very emotive picture. Take away those signs, and you wouldn't know it was a protest. FP is the home of media that "speaks” to people, and "has the capacity to evoke emotion". So far as emotions go, most of the people in that photo look bored. Not exactly inspiring. 202.12.233.23 12:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cheb mažoretka 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2009 at 20:59:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anexo de Pamuri-3.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2009 at 21:45:39
Paisaje en el anexo de Pamuri, provincia de Tayacaja. 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anexo de Pamuri-Becerro.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2009 at 22:13:49
Becerro en el anexo de Pamuri-Pampas. 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:La compania.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2009 at 01:18:08
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support VII century Jesuit Church in Patzcuaro, Michoacan. A sober baroque style typical of Jesuits. At right, El Sagrario. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment A beautiful and detailed image, with a subtle, yet intriguing composition. After seeing it, I want to know what happened to the church in the past. There is a noticable leftward tilt though, so you might want to correct that. By the way, is that the subject of your previous nomination I spy in the background? =} 203.35.135.133 12:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear 203.35.135.133, a few things: I did a little of perspective correction in photoshop but it is hard to get all vertical straight due to lens distortion, etc.,. I tried to get the center tower straight but if I abuse the perspective control the image starts to get fuzzy at places. Another thing is that not all lines are vertical! Second, yes, what you see in the background is a church from a previous nomination. Also, later on I will try to find information for you on the church. You can read interesting things about Patzcuaro at #REDIRECT [2] and #REDIRECT [3]. Thank you for the comments! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not very good light. I believe, that one could find better conditions in other daytime. Main part of building is in dark. --Karel (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The facade of the building faces north almost exactly, maybe 2º-3º off (you can see the sunlight direction and determine the sun trayectory on the towers) which for an observant photographer means: 1) The facade will never be illuminated by the sun, no matter what hour of the day, always in the dark. 2) At high noon, if there is stray sunlight, it will cast very long vertical and high contrast shadows, which in this case would not be pleasing. On the other hand, one of the things about photography is the use of light and the management of the tonal range. This particular scene will see an increase in tonal range (thus contrast and further loss of detail in the shadow areas, compounded by the short dynamic range of digital cameras) as the sun comes up and decrease again in the afternoon. In this particular case, I visited the church under early morning noon and late afternoon light and chose the subtle and low contrast morning light. I did not bother to photograph it at noon. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Main subject is leaning right (Door and RHS wall are not vertical) also some quite visible blue Chromatic Aberration on the RHS of the stone crucifix. I think that the photo point could be better (higher) and though it is a nice shot it doesn't compel me - Peripitus (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, not that much because of the leaning towers (the building seems to be actually crooked...), but rather because of the odd composition. The main focal subject is cropped by the low wall in the foreground, the large cross seems disconnected from the scene... --JY REHBY (discuter) 01:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Compositional flaws as mentioned. Lycaon (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Despues de la cosecha en Pampas.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2009 at 22:28:56
Campo luego de la cosecha. 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day).  Lycaon (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parque Etxebarria.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2009 at 17:57:43
Etxeberria Park, in Bilbao, Spain. 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day).  Lycaon (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quad-Core AMD Opteron processor.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2009 at 18:06:58
Quad-Core AMD Opteron processor 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day).  Lycaon (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Forest lone tree 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 00:17:19
Lone tree

I have several variants, but the uncropped tree is too dead-centre. Also with more dramatically red sky, but this is darker and loses some foreground detail which is present in the lighter version in what comes over in the thumbnail as an all black foreground. The tree was amongst gorse, on which the ponies were grazing. I will replace with uncropped tree and invite comment. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Now done - difference is very slight - I have one with the tree looking more distant, but I thought the higher definition on the branches would be better. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day).  Lycaon (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama da Atessa 02.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2009 at 21:30:57
Panorama of the Val of Sango and of the surrounding hills (province of Chieti, Italy)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is small. Please read guidelines before nominating. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment This photo is clear, sharp and informative, and the light is attractive. If a higher-resolution version is available, it would increase the value as an illustration of the area. Fg2 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ZenitBC.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 23:34:57
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day).  Lycaon (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hitterdals Church, Telemarken (i.e, Telemark), Norway- (LOC).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2009 at 17:37:42
Hitterdals Church, Telemark, Norway

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is watermarked Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:View thru the E river from the bridge.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2009 at 22:44:06
E river through Edam town in Netherlands

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is tilted Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swan for a stroll in Sunny weather.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2009 at 23:19:14
Elsinore Swan, Denmark

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is overexposed Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ship coming 2 dock at Elsinore Denmark.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 00:00:50
Ship, Helsingborg Dock

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is tilted Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sound helsingborg.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 22:14:10
Sound_Helsingborg

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is tilted Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eiffel Tower view Canal.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 22:22:10
Eiffel Tower _Paris

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is tilted Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what is called a canal is the Seine River. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks for spending sometime pondering over this picture guys. I did it purposefully to have it in that manner. I hope its fine and I really dont want to make it straight as well. Madhruantakam

File:Punch - Masculine beauty retouched1.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2009 at 07:27:13
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose => not featured. Ö 20:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gustave Doré - Dante Alighieri - Inferno - Plate 9 (Canto III - Charon).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2009 at 16:31:52
Charon in the Divine Comedy 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose => featured. Ö 20:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blackbird female.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2009 at 09:32:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose => featured. Ö 21:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crocodylus acutus feeding.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2009 at 14:05:55
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Comment Dear Lycaon, Wow! That was a fast oppose! There is just no satisfying your ever changing criteria, quicker than quicksand. A competent photographer and critic would have a totally different interpretation of the data that you just happened to mention. Technically speaking, a choice of ISO 1600, shutter speed of 125 and capturing a moving event in its natural environment (not a zoo, like some) with the level of detail is quite a feat. Granted, not the prettiest of subjects, but crocs are crocs. Some people around here, including you I believe, call that “mitigatng circumstances”. But your oppose is ok with me, cannot expect anything more. Happy New Year! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tomas, please try not to attack whenever Lycaon makes a critical judgement that you disagree with. Your implication that Lycaon is not a competent critic goes too far and is in my view a very unnecessary personal attack. Your choice of ISO 1600, shutter speed 125 to get enough light is a valid option, but has the disadvantages (noise/motion blur) that Lycaon mentions. Those disadvantages must have been forseeable to you when you made your choice of camera settings, and I see no reason for you to become aggressive when those same obvious issues are mentioned by a reviewer to justify an oppose vote. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael, It really amazes me the "selective identification of implication" attributed to my comments, and the blindness granted to the implications of comments of others. But come on Michael, you know that this is not about just about disagreeing over an oppose vote. There is much more depth to that. On another hand, I have a proven track record on the real world of photography (I say this aware that it may be interpreted as tooting my own horm, but I don't care). And as a person with such experience, my opinion is (I've said it many times) that the selection process is fundamentally flawed (and it is a shame) and one of the consequences is that it runs talented people out of here, to the detriment of a larger good, which is the pursuit of knowledge, etc., etc. So this community can keep on tooting their own horn and believe that this is the greatest photography on earth (reserved to a few participants) or take a hard nosed self critical look and take steps to improve. Believe me, any serious photographer would laugh at the process and be dissapointed by many rejections of good, solid work. I really wish this could become a real and serious forum that attracts talent and work to share for the greater good. In Mexico we have a saying that says: "There is no worse blindness than that of the person who does not want to see." --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Stunning picture which I would probably ask for printing if I had the money for it. Thumbnails of photographs are not really useful, people usually look at the high-res version to vote. :) →Diti the penguin — 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment That's not very realistic, isn't it? An FP on the Main page is hardly larger than a thumb. That's our business card. But which such a gloomy gray picture... ??? Lycaon (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Question Do you review the images here simply for their appearance as an one-day Featured Picture, or for the quality of the image for other uses, including printing? (Note: This is not an attack, just a real question, since I review images mostly because I feel they suit to this particular use). →Diti the penguin — 23:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Dear Diti... you hit the medular point... There is, in my opinion, no real set of criteria of what a FP should be. Much like travelling without a map. However, as such, choose your own road. I would like for this place to choose FPs based on 1) Encyclopedic value 2) Aesthetic qualities 3) Technical merit. 4) Photograhic skill. But these criteria are no match for the Wow-O-Meter, that elusive measuring instrument guarded in the darkest corners of the subjective world of the FPC priests. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has diiferent criteria and I feel your plea for enyclopedic content over aesthetic and technical merit will probably be appreciated at the rnglish wikipedia FPC. Muhammad 11:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muhammad, I think that the core objective and therefore the first criteria should be encyclopedic value, and from that platform other values, such as aesthetic, cultural, artistic value can be approached. However, here, the aproach is a hocus pocus approach, sometimes refering to the pixel values, sharpness, noise, etc., etc., variables that have absolutely nothing to do with the encyclopedic value of images, or even the quality of them. Encyclopedic value, context, history, relevance is all thrown into the waste basket in order to make room for the Wow-O-Meter and historically-recent technological developments in digital imagery that negate the accumulated value of just about anything done prior to the year 2000. Commons is a repository for all Wikis, and all wikis are encyclopedic, so why should Commons be out of tune? You make the shoes to fit your feet, not grow your feet so as to fit the shoes. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Can't see the reptile, because colour of the water is too similar to that of the reptile. —kallerna™ 20:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment This has absolutely nothing to do with camouflage. Water is colourless. This is just a case of poor lighting. Or do you really think that this crocodile has this colour so that photographers from the pool side won't notice him?? Come on people, be serious. Camouflage is a biological characteristic which increases the rate of survival of an organism by blending in its environment, whether as a predator or as a prey. It is not a feature that evolved for wowing FP assessors. Claiming EV for camouflage is close to ridiculous. Lycaon (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Dear Lycaon, of course water is colorless, in its pure form... hardly the conditions you find in the wild. Problem here is the particles suspended in the swamp water, or as in the case of some zoo photographers (you should know), in the pool, they are not transparent. Lighting is natural, and it plays on the water surface, and the way it does helps hide the crocs, for the texture of their skin blends in with the waves, etc. In anycase, the color and texture of the skin blends in with other elements of the environment anyhow, plants, reflexions, mud, etc., etc. Poor lighting? Well, of course it is not the light one gets in a cozy lab, out here we call it natural lighting. --189.187.132.1 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second  Comment As the result of the above post, which I inadventently failed to sign logged in, but for which I take full responsibility, Lycaon blocked my IP address thus preventing me from participating and censoring my comments, an act that I consider unfair and an abuse of administrator power. I am accused of implying certain traits about some people, yet nothing is said about the implications that can be derived from Lycaon's words. If Lycaon can critize my photograhic work and my opinions, why can't I do the same with his opinions? Criticism is welcome, both ways. I know my demeaor may turn people off about me and my work, that is ok, that is their prerrogative, but this is not about me or my work. This is about encyclopedia, about art, about knowledge. To stiffle opinion is a coward act of censure. Period. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Dear Alvesgaspar, I sig my name to my posts and do not hide neither intent nor opinion, and for that I get blocked and censured. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is not important who's behind, what's important is: will it help admin to realize they cannot act on Commons like they would own it, they cannot be treated differently as other users, I'm not sure it is not the goal on Wiki's... --67.159.50.130 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, could we be more mellow please? Water is colorless, of course, but these creatures live in shallow slow-moving waters. They are very well camouflaged in silt and mud. Durova (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose If this image should demonstrate camouflage I think it would be better without the fish. The fish was hardly caught due to the color of the croc. But as a plain croc image it feels too dark, noisy, unsharp and hard to see the main subject. (though I like the dynamics with the catch). /Daniel78 (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentSo an unclear understanding about how a picture was done is grounds for opposing??? I tell you a secret... I just point and push a little button until it does "click". As to the above reasons, which one? There are soooo many! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PakistanConsulateHouston.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2009 at 20:08:21
The Consulate-General of Pakistan in Houston

  •  Info created by WhisperToMe - uploaded by WhisperToMe - nominated by WhisperToMe -- WhisperToMe (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- I like the lighting and the landscaping in this shot - plus I haven't heard of a consulate getting a featured picture - WhisperToMe (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Composition (too much tree, not enough consulate) Snowwayout (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support I agree with Snow somewhat, but that's a pine tree, and we can't really rewrite reality, and it does give a pleasant atmosphere to the scene. It would be nice, however, if the tree branches in the upper left weren't there, perhaps by photographing from a couple steps forwards of that point, or kneeling down, to get it from a lower angle. The technical quality of the photography looks good to me, and I'm sure that our photographers will chime in if there's problems that my eyes are not trained to see. Frankly, all these really big, multi-layer images of architecture look a little blurry to me at full view in some areas, but I've always presumed that that's because the extra resolution which helps them print better puts it beyond the optical limits of the camera to focus on all areas of the scene at once. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Composition; where is the WOW? —kallerna™ 19:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Currier & Ives Brooklyn2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2009 at 04:04:59
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 21:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ijazah3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2009 at 10:06:12
Ijazah

Then where is your "support"?--Mbz1 (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. Maybe I'll abstain. ;) Durova (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Then again, I may be biased :) Muhammad 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I do not get what is special about it. Crapload (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an important type of Islamic art - representation of the prophet - and I believe later all people - was considered taboo in religious decoration, so heavily decorated words became important instead. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Islamic art highly under-represented on Commons. But I am surprised that there is no "support" from Durova. Are there restoration issues still pending with this? --JalalV (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, I think it's some sort of personal ethics issue: Durova doesn't like supporting my nominations because we work together so much. However, I didn't actually notice it was her restoration when I decided to nominate it here, nor do I see nominating good work I find by anyone as a problem, so, you know. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adam is correct. The pool of restorationists is very small so he and I do work together frequently. About half a year ago I began to worry that someone would construe mischief so I began to back off from Adam's nominations. He thought that was being too cautious, but a few months later someone actually did come along at a sister WMF site and accuse us of corruption. That episode made me very glad I had pulled back as much as I did. Someone on this site has been difficult toward me for over a year; I endeavor to maintain polite distance which is why you don't see me so often. The nomination is flattering and a pleasant surprise, but I already have plenty of featured credits and would rather not run into strife when I do content work. So, recusing. Durova (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support (+1 late), 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christopher Reeve MIT.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2009 at 11:34:27
Portrait of Superman actor Christopher Reeve 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose (+1 late), 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aeronautics2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2009 at 15:59:24
Balloons

  •  Comment Once again, in an attempt for improved communication: I would have respectfully given access to the cleaned and uncolor modified layer of this file had I been asked. It is interesting how an internet and the ease of editing provided by a software seemingly does little to enable an ability to communicate at those times it would have been good to communicate for the purpose of collecting images and the best version of those images -- that is the purpose of this wiki or do I not understand again? This image and all of the contributors deserve thoughtful, positive and knowledgeable management. My support would be for a future with more collaboration towards the stated goals of the interface. -- carol (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you had your originals for this far back - I didn't even know it was yours until I went to upload it. At this point, I did some somewhat major cleanup work to one small area you missed, and, while I'm happy to redo that, I'm not sure that in this medium the paper matters as much. I'm sorry if I upset you, my intent was to thank you for your good work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, here is an "I am sorry" where the "You are welcome" should have been. I will thank you when you upload your further repair and color adjusted version into the namespace that is occupied by mine right now and get your administrator friends to delete the version that is nominated and being approved here. The repaired only layer from my attempt is here. If you have the confidence and ability to use a different software, my eight-layered file contains a layer which was supposed to isolate the print from the background and perhaps you could more easily create and upload a sharper grayscaled version to the namespace for that here using that eight-layered thing I saved here.... -- carol (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I've redone it. I don't think we need redo the votes - the only major change is a smidgen more sepia, and a bit more sharpness at 100%. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Shoemakers holiday at English wikipedia knew that the edit was mine and is claiming to have made these new files. It isn't the sound of one hand clapping is it? -- carol (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 12:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katowice - Katedra - Drzewo fatimskie 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Leftside altar in cathedral in Katowice 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bihoreau Gris 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 01:49:41
Black-crowned Night Heron 

result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 12:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:J accuse.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 01:49:23
w:Emile Zola's famous public letter "w:J'Accuse" to the president of w:France in protest against the mishandling of the Dreyfus Affair, 1898.


  •  Info created by Émile Zola - uploaded by Schutz - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This introduction was written by user:Durova for the nomination on English Wikipedia:
    "This might qualify as the most famous newspaper editorial of all time: Emile Zola was France's leading writer, the w:Dreyfus Affair was its most famous scandal, and Zola published this public condemnation of the government in order to force his own prosecution for libel, so that he could raise evidence in defense of Dreyfus that had been suppressed from Dreyfus's case. Sounds convoluted? It was, but it wasn't a passing scandal either; the affair was a landmark in the history of antisemitism and Zionism. High resolution legible file; English translation available at Wikisource. The headline reads I accuse...! Letter to the president of the republic from Emile Zola"
  •  Info The image is FP on English and Turkish Wikipedias
result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 02:37:47
Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish edit

Why you call it the first bird? Isn't the rude one is a second bird? :). Yes, I was filming absolutely different things, when I saw the first bird with a fish. In no time I changed my camera settings and my zoom to capture this bird with a fish. Who knew the other bird would fly into the frame? On the other hand you could look at the image like it were an image of a single bird with a fish while the second (rude one) is simply something extra. How's that? BTW there are other versions in the image descrition that do show both birds fit in the frame--Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lacerta agilis, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 09:26:36
Lacerta agilis 

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MonastereSteCatherine.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 10:40:15
General view of St Catherine's monastery in Sinai peninsula 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Northern-Gannet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 10:53:03
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Physiphora alceae female2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 11:16:13
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ch.megacephala wiki.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 12:21:48
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two Papilio Machaon

 Info Done. --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 2 oppose (+1 late), 1 neutral => featured. Ö 12:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anthomyiidae.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 12:50:33
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phenakistoscope 3g07690d.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 18:25:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 12:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xerocomus badius 2008.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 19:48:41
Xerocomus badius 

result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 12:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DuckandC1951.ogg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2009 at 02:38:16

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crocodylus acutus out.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2009 at 04:45:25
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Comment Dear Richard, I recognize the lack of contrast is a bit of a problem. The circumstances are adverse in many ways for my occasional visits to this swamp. Ligth is always a problem. In this spot where crocs congregate at the edge of the swamp there is a mangrove, and when the sun is up, the sunlight filters through and makes it even worse, I get what I call Dalmatian Light (lots of spots), so I have to wait until the sun is low enough. In anycase, the window is very short, maybe 30 minutes in the afternoon. Morning light is fine, but the crocs don't go into action until they warm up. Another problem is the spot where I climb into, I have to watch out for the critters, camera, etc. Sometimes I have crocs in three sides and I sure don't want to be croc diner. So that leaves us the reflexions. A polarizer filter could help but then I lose 2-3 stops, and I am already at ISO 800, 1/30 exposure and 5.6 aperture (I need that tiny bit of DOF). Plus the fact that it is hard to predict their movements, although I watch out for the apex of their movement, that moment that freezes the instant, before the subject goes back to movement. So it is what it is, with its faults and strengths. And after the shoot, cerveza and tequila, it is beach vacation anyway! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL! Well, scary, no, amazing, yes, safe, if you are careful, I really don't take stupid chances. I spend a lot of time observing them, but most of the time they just linger, with occasional outburts. Crocs are what can be described as "beautifully ugly critters"... Anyway, they are not good climbers! And actually the biggest problem are the mosquitoes. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Queen Wilhelmina2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2009 at 04:47:26
Queen Wilhelmina in 1899 

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 12:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coffea arabica -Köhler.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2009 at 05:03:08
Coffea arabica from Köhler's Medizinal-Pflanzen

  •  Info Coffea arabica from Köhler's Medizinal-Pflanzen in naturgetreuen Abbildungen mit kurz erläuterndem Texte. created by Gustav Pabst - uploaded and color corrections by Adam Cuerden - nominated by carol -- carol (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Adam Cuerden here and Shoemaker's Holiday there has called the original scan of this not worth spending a lot of time with but still worthy of being hosted with the collection at the commons. I nominate it now for the example of selective editing techniques used by the voter approved administration, the improvement that one user can show in just 8 or 9 months and well, because it is kind of funny to me.... -- carol (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, image is far below size requirements Lycaon (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support And I will explain why I contest the FPX: These type of engraving were conceived and executed at their final reproduction size. In this case, the image, at 300 dpi, which is the standard for high quality printed reproduction, (and the human eye cannot resolve higher dpi anyway), measures 3x4 inches, which is about the size that were printed in the old encyclopedias. So even if you scan at 10,000 dpi, their optimal reproduction size will still be 3x4 inches because that was the intended viewing size. Granted, at higher dpi you can enlarge the image with less loss of detail, but the quality will suffer anyway due to the limitations of the quality of the the lines and drawing itself. The best viewing size will always be 3x4 inches, no matter how many dpi you cram into the digital file. As I child I would spend hours and hours looking at the engravings of the encyclopedia, of plants, animals and places, and one accepted the drawings as they came, large or small. The fact is that those artists left us what would have been the best photography of their time. A visual representation of their world. With the notable benefit that through drawings or engravings, because of their nature, they could eliminate unwanted and distracting information and concentrate (even with their artistic license) on the main characteristics of their subjects. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Good botanical art is cause for celebration and an invaluable window on a pre-photography world. Rotational (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I own a reprint of one volume of Medizinal-Pflanzen (Not the one with Coffee in it). I started to scan it (File:Koeh-056.jpg), but the half-toning visible at the extremely high resolutions I was scanning at, and the slowness in getting any assistance in doing a fourier transform to descreen the half-toning made me give up in the end. However, the problems are only coming out at 12 megapixels. - I have no doubt at all that we could remain comfortably above 2 megapixels and get good quality work out of this reprint. I wish that when you asked me about Köhler you had mentioned you wanted to get an FP out of him. I would have happily sent you as many scans from this reprint as you cared to do. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unknowing of what I should apologize for: my lack of communication skills, my attempt to work with what is available here or perhaps that I am feeling a need to question the lower limits of the pixel requirement for work which is not intended for a contest. I admit, often I refuse to work on images which do not exceed 500 pixels on each side -- these images rarely appear in articles though and there is a point where there really are not enough pixels to adjust effectively. Perhaps I will take the time to gather the images that were large enough for you to practice "up to" your more agile recent skills on as an example of how to discriminate effectively if the goal is to work towards the approval of what seemingly is "those who really matter" here and at English wikipedia. You could simplify things and tell me which I should apologize for and how I can more clearly ask you about images like this -- entering it into FPC was not my first choice.... -- carol (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bunch o crocs.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2009 at 05:13:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manhattan00.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2009 at 08:50:04
1873 view of Manhattan & New York 

result: 8 support, 3 oppose (+1 late), 0 neutral => featured. Ö 12:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pillar kronberg castle entrance.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 01:47:52
Sculpture _entrancepillar_kronberg castle

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Alas, the above comments are probably right - this sort of shot needs both a good, bright sunny day and a decent camera setup to reduce blur. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Suny-storm.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2009 at 20:06:16
Español: Se puede ver un cielo encapotado de nubes, con el Sol creando reflejos que hacen que esas nubes parezcan doradas.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Resolution is too low /Daniel78 (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Quite a shame the resolution is so low. Coudld've been a somebody. 203.35.135.133 12:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Virgo-lavirgen.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2009 at 15:56:29


 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Resolution is too low /Daniel78 (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Arcoiris-atardecer.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2009 at 15:38:39
Español: Se puede observar un cielo rosa atravesado por un arcoiris

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Resolution is too low /Daniel78 (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Caravella 2 edit.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2009 at 17:12:42
Draw of caravel in the heavy see

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

Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:VanGogh-starry night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2009 at 12:42:52
This is one of featured pictures on Turkish Wikipedia and this can be a potential to the English Wikipedia. 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sarcophaga Bercaea.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2009 at 14:06:33
Sarcophaga Bercaea 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Colias croceus 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sahuaro in bloom 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2009 at 18:42:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Question Dear Lycaon, Could you, as an Admin look into the post by 78.21.253.47 and make sure it is not a sockpuppet? I really would appreciate it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 11:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common Buckeye, Megan McCarty76.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2009 at 21:51:49
Junonia coenia 

result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dunvegan Castle in the mist01editcrop 2007-08-22.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2009 at 22:44:25
Dunvegan Castle 

result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 11:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stockholm city center landscape.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2009 at 13:25:01
Stockholm City Landscape

  •  Comment Clouds like that can be very beautiful. In this picture the buildings were too dark. If you changed the exposure on your camera and the buildings looked perfect, then the clouds would be too bright! Please read about HDR photography. With this technique, you can get the beautiful clouds and also see the buildings perfectly. --JalalV (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- Thanks for the suggestions. I presume I would have to check the HDR. Madhurantakam
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:02.Trinidad (59).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2009 at 15:16:07
Street in Trinidad (Cuba) 

result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Ö 12:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Staverden - watermolen met bevroren waterrad.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2009 at 22:56:21
Frozen water mill

  • Admins are as much bound by the rules as any other user. This will have to run its 9 days I'm afraid. En voor de Nederlandse supporters. Lees 'ns de guidelines alvorens er met de voeten vooruit in te vliegen ;-). 78.21.253.47 21:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 18 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barack Obama in Berlin.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2009 at 18:23:00
Barack Obama in Berlin 

result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stadshuset stockholm.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2009 at 22:21:18
State House of Stockholm 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Notredame Paris.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2009 at 22:35:30
Notredame_Paris 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:VanGogh-starry night ballance1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2009 at 23:58:40
Starry Night 

result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Ö 12:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle of Gettysburg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2009 at 20:49:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Navajofamily.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2009 at 20:54:08
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sydney skyline at dusk - Dec 2008.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2009 at 20:57:47
Sydney skyline at dusk - Dec 2008 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 10:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tyre shop worker2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2009 at 22:20:55
Tyre shop worker 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swan ElsinoreCastle.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2009 at 23:06:45
A royal Swan in the moat surrounding Elsinore castle, Denmark 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avian Swirl.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2009 at 23:34:32
An evening in Stockholm 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nature Art.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 00:44:36
Nature"s own art creation 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ship Helsingborg Dock.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 01:29:01
Ship coming to dock at helsingborg, Denmark 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Craticulina sp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 11:49:14
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Question No, doesn't work for me. I think Commons should continue having all different species and subspecies it cant get from contributor. Can you find another Craticulina featured picture on here? ;) --Acarpentier 21:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 15 support (+1 late), 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 10:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pāhoehoe and Aa flows at Hawaii.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 15:16:33
Pāhoehoe Lava and ʻAʻā lava flows side by side 

result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 10:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crocodylus acutus close up.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 18:04:10
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Comment LOL! Hundreds... from time to time I go over them, pick out a few and do a little bit of photoshop. I am planning to go back to the swamp (without wife and kids) soon to get the definite American Crocodyle shots. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Dear Lycaon, in simple math... ISO 1600 + 1/60 ss + f5.6 = low light conditions = noise, an expected effect, as grain was before digital, which does not negate the information value of the image. Any semi-competent photographer can figure that one out. Of course, in a warm lab with a dead animal better photographic conditions could be available. I prefer to leave the croc alive. Noisy? Noise camouflages quite well in this image. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The intention of this image is to show the skin characteristics of the croc, this crop gives us a view of three different textures in the head area. To zoom in cuts information out, and to zoom out would include unwanted information in the image. Or how would you approach the crop? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crocodylus acutus in swamp 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 19:11:22
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Hoop (Rijswijk).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 20:59:08
Gristmill in Rijswijk, The Netherlands 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albrecht Altdorfer, The Battle of Alexander at Issus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 21:00:03
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plan de Paris Lutece BNF07710744.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 21:05:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Stamp of the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copenhagen waterfront.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 22:06:27
Copenhagen waterfront _picture taken from a boat 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liquid eiffel bw.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2009 at 10:48:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION

But it's nice picture :)--Paris 16 (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ponte estaiada Octavio Frias - Sao Paulo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2009 at 14:50:49
Octavio Frias bridge - the newest landmark of Sao Paulo 

result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 10:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doronicum orientale.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2009 at 15:45:49
Doronicum orientale 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roundtower copenhagen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 01:05:24
Copenhagen Round tower 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ship coming 2 dock at Elsinore Denmark2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 01:15:19
Ship arriving_Elsinore

See my suggestion (in the Discussion page) suspending self-nomination. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ship coming 2 dock at Elsinore Denmark3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 01:26:03
Ship reaching Elsingore Dock 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drum set.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 08:32:51
A drum set 

result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Sun and Steam Phase eruption of Castle Geyser.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2009 at 20:09:47
Castle Geyser 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1, featured[edit]

Castle Geyser

If the image is cut on the left hand side I would cut the person. I believe it is important to have a person in the image to show the size of the eruption.If I cut on the right hand side I would lose other steams, that show how Geyser Basin looks on early, cool mornings. What do you think? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should not be cropped. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crop from left hand side. The person ruins it. —kallerna™ 12:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 11:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2, not featured[edit]

Castle Geyser 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louis XIV of France.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 10:46:16
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacques-Louis David, The Coronation of Napoleon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 10:46:16
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carla Bruni-Sarkozy (3).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 14:43:42
Carla Bruni 

result: 12 support (+1 late), 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 11:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:XO-Beta1-mikemcgregor-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 15:05:21
OLPC XO-1 ($100 laptop) 

result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 11:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomb of the Unknown Soldier 2 (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 17:00:32


result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unknown ruin, Iraqi desert.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 17:05:42


  •  Comment I may be wrong, but that's was my first impression when I saw pic, and later build up on loss of every available data about it. You think that something like this can't be faked? --Lošmi (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silhouettes in sun glitter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 22:26:55
Silhouettes in sun glitter

My only hope that you will not sue me for hurting your eyes, will you not? :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Karel (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice try, and almost there. Square shape tends to look wrong. And I think you should have been, for the composition, lower down so that the silhouette figures are more a part of the picture than something in the way. But that would probably have got the wrong reflections on the water. The drift of colour towards orange in the distance is good. The horizontal black bars I assume to be waves, but it is not obvious. Getting the bird in is a very good feature. But the pixel definition is not there in the full version. Sorry to be negative overall. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose —kallerna™ 12:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too sad these waves made those black bands (mainly the big one in the front). Would have supported otherwise. --S23678 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ship Helsingborg Dock2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 22:43:20
Ship_arriving_Helsingborg 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Renal corpuscle.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2009 at 09:21:36

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Whole nephron with Henle's loop
  •  Info The author is also a student of medicine. I ask him to comment. I unfortunately can not refer to the substantive allegations. Albertus teolog (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Hey, I'm author of this image. I don't think so that miniature (of whole nephron) is necessary. In professional picture of Renal corpuscle have a similar approach (eg. in Netter: [5] or in [6], or [7]). This painting imitates image under a microscope and has been verified by polish MD (wikipedist Thelarch). Image is only supplement to the text, you should remember this. --Michał Komorniczak (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what I'm trying to say here is, that a non-medical professional can't understand from the image that the distal tubule is just an extension, anatomically wise, of the proximal tubule. Therefore I think, that they should be given the same color. A ordinary person should be able to understand the connection between different structures without reading the text as well. Further more, I'm not implying there is anything wrong with the image. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I add miniature, but will do it not until next day. --Michał Komorniczak (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Changes according to the recommendations --Michał Komorniczak (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 11:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mosel BW 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2009 at 09:29:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:STEREO-A first images.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2009 at 09:57:33
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info First Solar Images from STEREO Telescope
  •  Info created by NASA - uploaded by NH2501 and sk (hi-res) - nominated by sk -- sk (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- sk (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Scientifically important. As a piece of scientific study, when this is viewed in fullest detail, it gives a fantastic view of the sun. Compare the views in different colours. It is brilliant for the information it gives. And note the Maunder Minimum in solar activity, which risks bringing a mini-ice-age if it continues. One drawback to this version. As a thumbnail the composition looks like a set of disco lights. It may work better as an animation, with each colour slowly replacing the other. To improve the artistic presentation, is it possible for sk to change the format to animated GIF, with only one coloured circle in the frame? -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose —kallerna™ 12:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose STEREO's special feature is the ability to provide a 3D view about the sun, which is not the case here. As well, the choice of false colors are rather confusing: it makes it difficult to observe the differences between different wavelengths, since the colors are not at the same brightness. Pictures should be combined (as I suspect, it's probably the reason why the sun is depicted in 4 different colours here) to make a full-color picture. --S23678 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1 - animation example, not featured[edit]

Slower animation I have made this derivative of the original to show the possibility of presenting this as an animation as an alternative to the side-by-side candidate for FP. Slower because I also made a faster version.) So that it would not take too long (and run out of memory) I have done this at the minumum resolution to creep past the 2Mpx limit. The slight jitter, mostly on the orange comapred with the other colours, is due to limitations on my software to chop the version on Wiki Commons. Can someone do this with better precision, please? It would then be a possible candidate for Valued Images, in preference to Featured Images. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: no votes => not featured. Ö 10:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

file:Stevia Gröden-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2009 at 13:51:08
Stevia range in the Dolomites 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Terpsichore Mahlknecht in winter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2009 at 14:10:46
Terpsichore by J.D. Mahlknecht 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eastern Tent caterpillar, Megan McCarty64.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2009 at 20:44:47
Malacosoma americanum larva 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Martin Luther King memorial during Allt ljus på Uppsala 2008-11-15.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2009 at 22:09:48
A monument to en:Martin Luther King in en:Uppsala, during the light festival sv:Allt ljus på Uppsala in november 2008. 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 10:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2009 at 23:28:25
Blacksmith's forge

My mistake. I saw "1.9M" on the file for this picture, and did not think to calculate the pixels from the other information. Past time I was asleep! Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Current River, Missouri, panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2009 at 00:12:31
Current River, Missouri 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Current River, Missouri.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2009 at 00:06:09
Current River, Missouri 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Summitting Island Peak.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2009 at 01:38:31
Summitting Island Peak

Yes, it was intentional. The photo is more about the spendor of the mountains and the view from the summit. This shot has some personal meaning for the climber in the photo and I, as the mountain in the background, Ama Dablam, is our next scheduled Himalayan conquest. Island Peak was our first so I was getting both mountains in the shot.
result: 11 support (+1 late), 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 10:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tent rocks MG 3174.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2009 at 15:12:32
Tent Rocks National Monument, NM USA 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Viribus Unitis - stained glass in Kutna Hora.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2009 at 15:42:29
Part of stained glass in St. Barbara Church, Kutna Hora, Czech Republic. 

result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 11:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2009 at 19:04:44
Official presidential portrait of Barack Obama 

result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gustave Doré - Dante Alighieri - Inferno - Plate 22 (Canto VII - Hoarders and Wasters).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2009 at 20:12:41
Hoarders and Wasters 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grand canyon of Yellowstone and Yellowstone fall.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2009 at 20:36:06
Grand Canyon of Yellowstone and Yellowstone fall

No, this image was never voted before. I uploaded a new version few days ago--Mbz1 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Metadata was lost in one of my PS edits, but here's the original File:Yellowstone canyon not post processed image.jpg. I do not think that with F11 we could talk about "Lack of depth of field". Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may be right… though I would have preferred if DoP was a bit more pronounced, using a f/6.3 aperture for example. Apart from this, which is a personal taste, I think the photo is really good. →Diti the penguin — 08:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The colors look too saturated and the contrast seem a bit high. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Great shot of the waterfall, and you can see the flow of water, when zoomed in to look at details. But there are a couple of places which look like saturated white, and something about the canyon sides wipes out the DOF. Perhaps a couple of hours earlier or later in the day would put shadows in the right places. Otherwise, I like it and may support when I've had a night's sleep. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1, not featured[edit]

Grand Canyon of Yellowstone and Yellowstone fall 

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original (not post processed)[edit]

Grand Canyon of Yellowstone and Yellowstone fall

It is a good image IMO. Please feel free to play with colors, everybody. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leiden at night Maresingel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2009 at 00:47:21
Leiden at night - View of power station in town center 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leiden at night Power Station at Langegracht.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2009 at 00:49:58
Leiden - View of power station in town center 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TamarackPanorama2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2009 at 02:55:38
Panorama of Tamarack Lake 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tigerwater.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2009 at 04:42:03
A tiger in the water

 Comment Cute? -- carol (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tigerwater edit1.jpg, not featured[edit]

A tiger in the water 

result: no votes => not featured. Ö 21:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tigerwater edit2.jpg, featured[edit]

A tiger in the water 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 21:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stream Enäjärvi.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2009 at 12:11:23
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phodopus sungorus, agouti pearl.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2009 at 12:25:46
A en:Winter White Russian Dwarf Hamster named Wolfram, fur colour "agouti pearl". The hands serve to further illustrate the size of the hamster. 

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colorado's Independence Monument.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2009 at 15:38:22
Independence Monument

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is too noisy. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

ianaré (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Island Peak Summit Approach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2009 at 15:26:31
Island Peak summit ridge

IP can nominate the image, but cannot vote on the image--Mbz1 (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did nominate it, but forgot to log in. Modified metadata to reflect that. -- Mountaineer (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, there are about 50 (mainly military themed) images I've found so far that I think deserve a chance at FP. I'm assuming it would be a bad idea to nominate them all at once? =} 203.35.135.133 18:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit 1, not featured[edit]

Island Peak summit ridge 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stegovnik-super.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2009 at 22:03:19
Stegovnik Waterfall HDR1 Stegovnik Waterfall HDR2

  •  Info created & uploaded & nominated by Miha (talk)
Left version
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right version
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duomo Orvieto facciata 08-09-08 f12.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2009 at 22:08:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dubrovnikblue.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2009 at 04:44:59
A beatiful view of Dubrovnik 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerusalem Dome of the rock BW 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2009 at 08:50:11
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Carte géographique (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

A map (butterfly) on a flower. 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Virginia Tech massacre candlelight vigil Burruss.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2009 at 18:19:33
Virginia Tech massacre vigil

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is too noisy. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andromeda galaxy Ssc2005-20a1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2009 at 22:42:19
Infrared scan of the w:Andromeda Galaxy by w:Spitzer Space Telescope 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Layla and Majnun2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2009 at 06:00:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

P.S. I was blown away by your recently featured 50+MB jpeg of Brooklyn. That is what I would call excellence for historical pictures! It was: a beautiful original, expertly restored, and had very high resolution and detail. :-) --JalalV (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. WMF software doesn't accept TIFF files, so usually I convert to .jpg at maximum file size. Some people prefer .png, but there's a debate over whether that's a good format for this type of material. Durova (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that if the original file is small enough that a png is less than 12MB, then isn't lossless without jpeg artifacts better? Obviously, for very large file sizes, then a large jpg would give more detail. Am I missing something? --JalalV (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 12:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chlorocebus pygerythrus00.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2009 at 07:49:24
Suckling vervet infant 

result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerusalem Dominus flevit BW 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2009 at 07:31:40
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 12:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gustave Doré - Dante Alighieri - Inferno - Plate 65 (Canto XXXI - The Titans).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2009 at 11:10:31
Titans and Giants 

result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 12:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:VanityFair-Darwin2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2009 at 21:25:31
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Njommelsaska i Lappland by Carl Svantje Hallbeck.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2009 at 00:43:19
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support (+1 late), 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 12:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HumphreysPeak.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2009 at 01:47:27
Mount Humphreys, Arizona

  •  Comment And the lack of geo-stationary or orbiting satellites (both airplanes and satellites make the much less arced trails from the parts of the sky near to the ecliptic more interesting). It should be possible to determine how fast the aircraft are going if the break in their trail can be found. -- carol (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support (+1 late), 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 12:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muttoni 56b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2009 at 01:59:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naturkundemuseum Berlin - Archaeopteryx - Eichstätt.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2009 at 12:22:08
Archaeopteryx 

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inside the salbert fort. 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MSX cartridge macro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2009 at 12:38:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sadi in a Rose garden.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 06:30:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul Signac, Grand Canal (Venise).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 06:32:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giovanni Battista Piranesi, The Colosseum.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 06:33:52
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

 result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Safety Belt.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 05:30:41


 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: image is a copyvio (the watermark itself states that commercial use is prohibited). →Diti the penguin — 18:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:BCLM exhibit 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2009 at 22:16:47
Ruby glass sweet bowl

Poor cropping (handle) - not so, in that the handle is notcropped. But I did crop my original close to the handle because I thought that you would object to the distracting line of the shelf above. I would have liked to have left that so as to give a little more clearance above the handle. This kind of subject is normally housed within display cases in such a location. or else on display in National Trust properties where permission for photographs is not normally available. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't write a treatise for every picture :-) The handle (as a fast & significant example) is cropped 2 tight except for the optical imbalance of object, cabinet and background --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional description - This bowl has a much softer finish because it is hot-worked. The handle, the feet, and some decoration are a different glass from the bowl, to which they have been fused. Thus all features are rounded with no sharp edges to catch the light in contrast to the diamond sparkle of cut crystal. However, there is enough patterning to create some sparkle points. The strong side-lighting casts a shadow of the bowl which reveals more of its structure. The display case, somewhat restrictive for angle of view and a disadvantage for photography, reveals some subtle reflections from the glass shelf and far side. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured[edit]

File:BCLM exhibit 01 edit 1.jpg Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2009 at 23:58:00
no cropping above handle

  •  Comment It is obvious the the object is lower than the eye of the photographer. Perhaps the photographer bent at the waist to get the photograph and what this photograph was needing was for the photographer to bend the knees also to make the camera be at the objects level. -- carol (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the observation, Carol. That would be one way round some of the objections about the arangement of the picture. However, it then loses any significant view of the interior, which is an important part of the image as a description of the object, and defines its shape. Without that interior, there is also a risk that the object looks flatter. Also, the shadow is partly below the shelf, so some of this would be lost, unless I included the shelf as a potentially distracting horizontal line. But is probably would have been better slightly lower camera height. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2[edit]

File:BCLM exhibit 01 edit 2.jpg Darkening some of the white area and smudging out the shadow of the shelf above. Leaves the main disadvantage that the display cabinet needed rotating to avoid the dark area behind lining up as it did. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Thanks for the debate, folks. It gives me some reminders about things to aim at when taking phots in general. In this example, if I get the opportunity to retake this object, I shall need to 1. Ask the Museum if they mind taking it out of the display case; 2. Make sure that it is in a location where the background is not subject to different shadows in different halves. More generally, comments on other pictures have reminded me of the need to avoid cropping of the subject (like the official photo of Obama is cropped - his left shoulder is missing); avoid tilt; make sure of focus, etc. I may be a little disappointed with the comments about this picture, but it is useful to be reminded of what makes a picture better than average. Thanks, folks. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minosterstvo průmyslu 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2009 at 22:10:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info Já vím, jsem (š)moula. To je tak, když se člověk jedním okem dívá na televizi a současně nahrává obrázek do wiki. Písmenka i a o jsou vedle sebe a malér je na světě. A díky za podporu, i když z dosavadního vývoje hlasování to moc nadějně nevypadá... --Karel (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Maybe you are right, I used tripod for making this image and during processing it I did not change the horizontal axis. But I think, the rotation angle is so small, that its change is only question of feeling anybody from us. Bye, --Karel (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mahanavami Dibba.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2009 at 19:56:40
Mahanavami Dibba Hampi 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Storr01 2007-08-22.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2009 at 16:00:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/January_2009&oldid=18631382"