Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2011

File:Bubble Ring in Sunlight.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 01:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Joe Burch - uploaded by Joe Burch - nominated by User:Rep07 -- Rep07 (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rep07 (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop, some of the bubbles at the bottom of the image are cut off.--Snaevar (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- No idea of what a bubble ring was before I did a search on the web. I see nothing exceptional here justifying a promotion to FP, either in the subject, the aesthetics or the image quality. Close to FPX, really. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferrofluid Magnet under glass.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2011 at 03:29:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Gmaxwell - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I nominated this once before, but sadly, it had one vote to few and failed. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The ferromagnetic fluid itself could have better lightning. There is an area to the right, which appear completely black and with no discernable structure. The presence of the glass plate gives a better impression of what is actually going on than the existing FP from the same series of photos, but it is also distracting because it protrudes so much out in the foreground. Thus, I prefer the aforementioned illustration of the subject. --Slaunger (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wanted to indicate the black area as an annotation, but somehow the annotation template code does not work. Maybe due to some renaming issues, because it has been nominated previously? --Slaunger (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, try now. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The subject is really interesting and I guess it's kind of an interesting effect to show the magnetic field going through the glass. But there's something about this that makes it hard to tell what that is, I might not have guessed that was liquid without some of the above comments and actually going to WP ("Where's the fluid? Is it invisible? That green thing?"), where I found this already featured image that I think is easier on someone looking at it. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking illustrative value, per IdLoveOne.--Snaevar (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I cannot follow any of those comments above. It's highly illustrative, and the fact that you can't tell it's fluid without reading the description makes it even more interesting. The background could be a lot whiter though. -- H005 20:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellowstone Castle Geysir Edit.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2010 at 14:10:20

Info

This is a downsampled version of File:Yellowstone Castle Geysir.jpg. Downsampling is generally disapproved for FP.
I can't find the nomination page. -- H005 14:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Original nomination)

Delist -- H005 14:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the original nomination is under Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Yellowstone Castle Geysir Edit.jpg --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I think the reasons which were named by H005 aren't grave enough for a delisting, but I agree that this shouldn't be a FP. There are distortions and wrong focussing. Furthermore the lightning and the composition are clearly not the best imo, you can see that if you compare it e.g. with Milas FP. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Clearly tilted CCW --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per others. LeavXC (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per others. Also: the right side of the cone is blown. --Cayambe (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per others.--Snaevar (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Batrachostomus septimus 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2011 at 16:28:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Joseph Smit - restorated, uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Restorations should be made in a different file and not on the original.--Garrondo (talk) 11:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, the original of this file is also a restoration. --Citron (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2008 first image provided by Regani? Nevertheless I would say that further changes (specially if the are as important as here) should be uploaded as different files.--Garrondo (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it was a bad restoration, then I finished Regani's work. Why not, that's the original, you can do it. Regards --Citron (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support... I also support Garrondo's remark above. --Cayambe (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Makele-90 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Over-saturated - compared with both the original version of the artwork and photos of the actual bird. Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Petroica boodang orford.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 16:59:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trachemys (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support LeavXC (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too much space to the right, but w/e. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo, congratulations. --Ken Billington (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Good composition too. -- MJJR (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 11:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20100701 Pelpin, cathedral, 9.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2011 at 17:01:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Martin Kozák -- Martin Kozák (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info nominated especially because of very high resolution (375 megapixels)
Support -- Martin Kozák (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor framing (large is not necessarily valuable or beautiful) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 18:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop and perspective are far from ideal, but here I just love the level of detail and the sharpness over the entire image. Worth downloading despite its size. -- H005 18:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eiffel Tower from north Avenue de New York, Aug 2010.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2011 at 08:51:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Maedin
Support. Second ever own-work nomination. We have very few files that show, from ground level, the Tour, the Seine, the proximity of the two, and the river traffic. This is certainly the only decent, quality one available on Commons, that I could find. Maedin\^talk 08:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 11:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. It would be even better if the inward tilt at the sides was removed. --Avenue (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 09:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Honningsvåg-01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2011 at 16:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Honningsvåg, one of the northernmost cities in the world.

Info created by Luca Boldrini - uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, oversaturated flickr kitsch. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar.--Snaevar (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Cayambe (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated. This is no tropic coast, but an artic one so such a saturation is obviously unrealistic. --Aktron (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Machine gun corps Gaza line WWIb edit2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2011 at 07:03:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the American Colony of Jerusalem - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Patriot8790 --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 07:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 07:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The file has been restored departing from the original. However there is no tag indicating that it has been retouched, no indication on what has been actually done and no link to the original file, which would be a good idea to upload to commons. A tiff version of the restoration would also a great addition to commons. Otherwise is a great image.--Garrondo (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until some info on the restoration is provided.--Garrondo (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC

- Comment Original tif file link: Machine Gun Corps @ Libary of Congress. Retouch tag has been added to the description of the image.--Snaevar (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info you might want to notice that the required information is available under "other versions". a retouched and a restored picture are two different things. a wise decision to not apply the template here. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Garrando, it's interesting. Part of me is against featuring it, but it's not really for VP or QI, so.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valuable historical photo. Steven Walling 20:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Jebulon (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Notre-Dame arrière neige.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2011 at 16:40:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathedrale Notre-Dame de Paris, snowy day...Blue sky and sunny day are not a mandatory... -- Jebulon (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not bad, I like it, I like the cloudy mood, but the bottom crop seems somewhat tight, the image looks a bit blurry and I miss the special, the featured thing in the composition. Just an opinion... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thank you for giving your opinion. The bottom looks maybe tight, because the picture is taken from a bridge (please look at the geotag) and his rail is would have been a bit disturbing in foreground

, and there is nothing else to see but the wall of the Seine embankment--Jebulon (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral IMO somewhat unsharp.--Snaevar (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the things I learned in Paris is that photographing Notre Dame is not an easy task. There is a myriad of obstacles in the way, or you have to get so close that you get horrible distortions. This is a pretty good image, high quality, composition is good, the lighting is very flat so it plays excellently on the subject. FP to me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition seems cut-off. integrating the Archbishop's Bridge or the Seine could be benficial. levels and sharpness should be reworked. please consider adding an annotation explaining the meaning of the locks, clarifying the last day of autumn (which can be different depending on you cultural background), linking to the articles of Notre Dame and the Archbishop's Bridge, using Template:Date (for people unaware of the french notion of december) and providing additional information on the equipment used by using Template:Photo Information. checking the image reveals repetitive patterns on the top - do i sense some kind of tinkering here? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop's Palace Bridge would be a disturbing foreground and out of the main subject.
The Seine is here about ten meters below a vertical wall. Impossible to add it.
Levels are sufficient to my eyes. Sharpness could maybe be better, indeed.
Explaining the meaning of locks is off topic and disturbing. Furthermore, I don't know nothing about this touristic practice.
The last day of autumn seems to be understandable enough. Autumn (or fall) is the season between summer and winter, and ends the 20 december, everywhere in the world. It is due to the equinox of the sun, but explanations are off topic here.
The photo is well categorized enough in "Commons". Please feel free to use it in articles.
There is no special french notion of december. December is a month, the last of the year, between november and january of the following year... Sunny in the southern hemisphere, it is cloudy, rainy and snowy in the northern one, generally speaking.
I don't have further informations about the equipment used, please see metadata.
I'm not sure I appreciate the word tinkering. As the frame was a bit tight above, because of my non-professional lens, I cloned some parts of the sky and added it at the top, to let the poor thing breathe. I used the GIMP. But please don't beat me, Master. Ich wusste nicht dass es verboten war.--Jebulon (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PG Girl with strawberries.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2011 at 22:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Prokudin-Gorskii - uploaded by Gorgo - nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Color photo taken in 1909. Same girl is shown in another featured picture - File:Prokudin-Gorskii-08.jpg, Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now Looks pretty good for and 102-year-old picture, even though this same image almost definitely wouldn't pass if taken today. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it an autochrome ? --Jebulon (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. --Sasha Krotov (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Very old color photo. Very good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO Oversaturated.--Snaevar (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have taken a look at the Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky category (author of the image) and all the images seem a bit oversaturated. Most probably due to the technique of taking the picture: Three-color process. If this is so the image can not be punished for the limitations of early photography.--Garrondo (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question How can one tell whether it's oversaturated? The reference here should not be whether it looks natural today, but how paper copies of it looked back in 1909. -- H005 18:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a histogram analysis can do the trick. a more convincing attempt to check for oversaturation is the digital colour composite as reference to what we can see here. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with sorry. I was to support, but this one is very similar to the already featured you mentioned, same girl, the same plate with strawberries is just in other hands, three girls instead of one, different background. I think the second one is better, and I disagree with featuring two pictures of the same subject. But obviously, I have nothing to say against the quality of a 1909 color picture. Thanks for make me (us ?) discovering this photographer I didn't know. Beware that the Library of Congress has digitalized about 2000 colored plaques from this author, and all could be feature-able. Should we ? If yes, in my opinion, maybe should we chose first other subjects from this author ... BTW, I have added a french translation and a link to the french WP in the creator template, and no, it is not "autochrome", but very interesting technics too.--Jebulon (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the subject of oversaturation. According to Libary of Congress photo description (this image comes from there), this image has been digitally colored from a glass negitive. As Garrando pointed out, saturation is a problem that can occour during coloring of pictures. Thus, I don´t belive that my voting on this photo has been too harsh, since it targets clearly the coloring process, but not the original.--Snaevar (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this digital rendering has hardly anything to do with the impression of the original colour composite. mr frankhauser had a rather artistic attempt to render and adjust the digital versions of the glass plate negatives. some images benefit from this treatment but this certainly doesn't. you may notice the issue of colour saturation or the fixing of technical problems (aligning damaged glass plate negatives will result in green, red and yellow blemishes) - the house in the background has richer colours in the digital colour composite and got a sepia touch in this rendering. if looking closer on the head of this girl and comparing rendering and composite you might as well notice a effect similar to the outcome of CA. creating an own rendering of the b/w triple frames and performing a proper restoration is worth a try - alas very time consuming and not achievable for all 1902 pictures available for this method. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) (12).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2011 at 19:15:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ken Billington - uploaded by Ken Billington - nominated by Ken Billington
Support -- Ken Billington 19:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not perfectly sharp at high resolution --Jebulon (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well captured... but the head isn't really sharp. Also: too much noise, mainly on the head and in the water around the bird (ISO 1000). --Cayambe (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done softness and avoidable noise now corrected. --Ken Billington (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon.--Garrondo (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Jebulon. --Snaevar (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The reflection wins me over, despite the softness and avoidable noise. --Avenue (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done softness and avoidable noise now corrected. --Ken Billington (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The feathers on the body seem unrealistic to me as well as the skin on the legs. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Jebulon. But an interesting shot: "bird in action" with a nice reflection. Pity, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snowing street to Fanealm.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 13:02:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, looks like a random snapshot from anywhere. Can't find anything special enough for FP. -- H005 18:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just like it. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per H005. --Slaunger (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose idem.--Jebulon (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would like the original (current picture is only 700kb) and it shows in quality, since the trees in the background are unsharp/blurry.--Snaevar (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a snowy street, nothing special. There are plenty of such pictures on Commons. --Aktron (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tataragi Dam01n4272.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 02:06:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- 663h (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 663h (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a bit blurry, plus someone's fishing line is in the way.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:White Stork (Ciconia ciconia) (5).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2011 at 19:10:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ken Billington - uploaded by Ken Billington - nominated by Ken Billington
Support -- Ken Billington 19:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info the stork had just flown off the nest, you can see traces of the straw from its nest between its toes and on its beak! --Ken Billington (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel that the lighting could be improved. It's supposed to be white and black but some feathers look greyish-pinkish. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per above but I don't dislike it enough to oppose. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting action shot. It would be hard to find lighting that illuminated the underside of the wings. --99of9 (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very good. Hard to do better in these circumstances. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Alvesgaspar.--Jebulon (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice capture otherwise, but we have several great pictures of this kind and the crop feels boxy and odd. Not quite FP quality from my perspective. Steven Walling 20:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice wingtip feather silhouette action, but too much pure black in center focus area, = poor depth/separation of foreground/background wings, = subliminal frustration/dissatisfaction.Rep07 (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry, to me, too tight crop at right. I don't like the composition--Miguel Bugallo 11:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Alves  Richard  [®]  14:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 17:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beppu Bay02n4272.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 14:01:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- 663h (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 663h (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sun makes interesting lens flare and sepia effect, but for an image to educationally show a body of water like this something more overhead or from a high point would be better, otherwise that could be any body of water. Still nice. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but same as other sunshines/rises. No educational value. Useless in "Commons".--Jebulon (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hexaplex radix 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 16:32:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hexaplex (Muricanthus) radix, Muricidae, Radish Murex; Length 9,5 cm; Originating from Pacific Coast of Central America; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if I'm not a fan of the grey background...--Jebulon (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks. I also prefer black, but the spines... --Llez (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC) --[reply]
  - I understand what you mean. Given the circumstances, your choice is the best possible...--Jebulon (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Pieris rapae .JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 23:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bruce Marlin - uploaded by Bruce Marlin - nominated by Bruce Marlin -- Bruce Marlin (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bruce Marlin (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting before the haters descend on it. And before they get here, for the sake of this image passing I Request, no beg that you stretch the image out on top. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Tight composition.--Snaevar (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The haters are here: let the two poor things (the flower and the insect) breathe! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I think it's not a Pieris rapae but a Pieris brassicae. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info Crop extended. - LeavXC (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LeavXC (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too much empty space to the right but w/e.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I think it's not a Pieris rapae but a Pieris brassicae. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The picture was taken near Chicago, Illinois. That species does not exist here. It's Pieris rapae.Bruce Marlin (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Snaevar (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dundus Square.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 19:52:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Dundas Square in Downtown Toronto. Created by Pedro Szekely - uploaded by Marmoulak - nominated by Marmoulak
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Wow.--Garrondo (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The color, the composition, the sensations it produces in my, the feeling of being there. I simply like it.--Garrondo (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Wow what? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really nasty distortion and tilt. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, oversaturated flickr kitsch -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seriously... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flickr kitsch --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Garrando, I would like being there, but sadly I don´t vote on pictures based on that. This image is tilted and disorted, per THFSW.--Snaevar (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is cool but I think it looks to high to be a FP. --Aktron (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Alvesgaspar and The High Fin Sperm Whale--Miguel Bugallo 11:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support FWIW. I stayed away from this 'cause I couldn't decide at first if it was a photo or a digital painting, but I think I agree with Garrondo. I find it kind of artistic. It's possible it could be run through GIMP and have the perspective corrected, but it probably would ruin the looking-up effect. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the perspective. It's perfect for this kind of image. But it isn't sharp enough and the colors are ugly, especially the black parts (wrong colors) inside the signs. --Niabot (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No, sorry, the list of postprocessing operations reads like a self-satire: Imagenomic Noiseware twice, one stronger on the sky. For the next commands I masked the sky. - Smart sharpen - Freaky details masking - Nik Tonal Contrast - Vibrance increase on the whole image - A bit os saturation boost on the sky - Curves - Burn the top of the sky and the edges. The result is typical Flickr Kitsch. --Dschwen (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition Bunnyfrosch (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rathaus Großbottwar neu.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 17:50:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- -- Felix König ✉ 17:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Felix König ✉ 17:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cropped to tight, sharpening halos. -- H005 18:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very valuable image, great encyclopedic value. Maybe not enough wow factor for a FP... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight composition.--Snaevar (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Agree. The context would certainly add to the picture of this beautiful house. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept your votes, but I don't really think that a partially view of an ice cream parlor and a parking area would be add something. -- Felix König ✉ 09:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW my only problem is that it could be lightened (looks like the sun was setting?) --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW ????--Jebulon (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW = For what it´s worth.--Snaevar (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maika Makovski-02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 17:46:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alterna2 - uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral cool lighting and pose, but her eyes are closed. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Does not meet the 2 million pixels minium limit and~~ background is blurry. --Snaevar (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2.000x1.333=2.666.000 pixels. Background is blurry because the singer is what's on focus, she is the main and sole subject, what does the background matter?? Therefore, I can't understand your opposal. Kadellar (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment About the picture, I miscalculated the resulution. I´ll accept a focus on the singer, where it serves a purpose. As a sidenote, I´d remind you to assume good faith, due to this comment.--Snaevar (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I assume good faith. Sorry if I got misunderstood, but I just wanted you to check your decision, I couldn't agree with you. Kadellar (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macropus rufogriseus rufogriseus Bruny.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 07:07:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by LeavXC -- LeavXC (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LeavXC (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose downsampled. would support a full res version. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in to vote. Anymous votes are not counted.--Snaevar (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really an anonymous vote ? "Regards" . --Jebulon (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Trachemys (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Phalacrocorax carbo Vic.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 16:48:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trachemys (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A good picture even if the resolution is relatively ”low”. --Ximonic (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Just another bird pic, unremarkable, flat/dull colors/textures/lighting.Rep07 (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bird didn't get to choose its coloring. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bird is in good quality. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some folks get bored by bird photos (Rep07) but I think it's great. --Ken Billington (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Makele-90 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 09:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please see annotations, regarding noise and darkness--Jebulon (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose downsampled. jebulon did you check for blocked up shadows? my display shows structure/pixel information in the area marked by you. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Uetliberg LCD.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 17:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Murdockcrc - uploaded by Murdockcrc - nominated by Murdockcrc -- Murdockcrc (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info View from the top of the telecommunications tower at Uetliberg, Zurich, Switzerland. On the foreground: the observation deck at Uto Kulm, Uetliberg. On center: Lake Zurich and the "Golden Mile" of Zurich. Background, right: the alps of canton Glarus.
Support -- Murdockcrc (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, souvenir-like but educational. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Snaevar (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support glad to be the seventh !--Jebulon (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moulin Moidrey.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2011 at 17:25:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 17:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 17:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Niabot (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llorenzi (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great angle choice! --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done! Royalbroil 01:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice kip (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MrPanyGoff 10:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting. Steven Walling 08:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Steampunk-falksen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2011 at 05:13:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by TyrusFlynn - uploaded by TyrusFlynn - nominated by Spongie555 -- Spongie555 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spongie555 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Oh my, yes. :) --Von.grzanka (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Von.grzanka. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Snaevar (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Certainly eye-catching, but the lighting/exposure is harsh enough to leave me unconvinced. Parts of the collar and buttons are overexposed, and I find the three lights reflected in his eye a bit overwhelming. --Avenue (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A refreshing and unusual steampunk portrait (which was a new concept for me). I would have preferred if his stick had not been cropped, but I am prepared to mitigate from this. --Slaunger (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Slaunger. --Cayambe (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. Yarl ✉ 18:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Interieur middenbeuk.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2011 at 15:16:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jan van den Eijnden - uploaded by Jan van den Eijnden - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like this overwhelming picture -- Basvb (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition: bad crop at the upper side, too much of the floor and the benches (is that the right word?), imho too dark. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Berthold Werner. --Cayambe (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Berthold Werner.--Garrondo (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Berthold Werner on the composition. The picture should show the dome, not just the altar.--Snaevar (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nearly full {{support}}. Love the lighting and the serene feeling, but per the others.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basvb (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hospital de Sant Pau 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2011 at 16:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by bgag - uploaded by bgag - nominated by bgag -- Bgag (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this just supposed to be part of the roof? Or was an attempt made to get the whole building? --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Comment It is just part of the roof, the most interesting part of the building. --Bgag (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral PQ is great, but the composition of the originally uploaded image is better.--Snaevar (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Haven't seen the original, but IMO that's a pretty good piece of roof. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good light, colors and sharpness, but I really do not like the crop on the lower and right edges. Composition is fairly good, but not quite FP standard IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kairo Ibn Tulun Moschee BW 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2011 at 19:03:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by-- Berthold Werner (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky is a bit noisy, but it doesn't affect the general quality. Nice view and encyclopedic value. I was there in 1991, during a sand storm... -- MJJR (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral IMO Somewhat unsharp. This is apperant at the tower with the spiral staircase.--Snaevar (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The border of the bottom shadow has strong CA. This should be easy to fix though... --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see chromatic aberration, it's just a bit boring. A very good image all the same. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Bunnyfrosch (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice view and encyclopedic value, but IMO somewhat unsharp and visible CA. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info CA should be better now. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yes, CA is much better now, you have my vote, great image. --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good technical quality and interesting subject. But I do not like the strong shadow and the composition. The composition is a compromise between either a strictly symmetric composition with the main tower in the corner centered and a rule of thirds composition with the two towers aligned with rules of thirds vertical lines. For me this in-between choise does not work and makes it appear uninteresting. I think a better composition would have been something along the lines indicated with my annotation. --Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aulostomus maculatus (Trumpetfish -brown variation).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2011 at 12:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - uploaded by Citron -- Citron (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare underwater picture, with an original point of view.-- Citron (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hell yes. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although in this case I would prefer to eliminate some of the left background to have the animal more centred. --Garrondo (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny fish --Schnobby (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support kip (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grand-Duc (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Callyspongia vaginalis (Branching Vase Sponge - pink variation).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2011 at 17:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded & created by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a CA, it's a natural reflection of this sponge.

Support Nice pic and there are no featured pictures of sponges. -- Citron (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO Visually pleasing at full resolution.--Snaevar (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Bunnyfrosch (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Creedite 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 19:52:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by LeavXC -- LeavXC (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LeavXC (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good educational value. Jonathunder (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I wish the lighting on the left was better. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The caption should give: the mineral species, place of discovery and dimensions --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put what is known to me (and was in the enwiki article, and emailed about the size). Noodle snacks (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of those things are there now. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Missing specs making the use of this image impossible. --Niabot (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Bunnyfrosch (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Orci Disk. 12:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Temple of Bel, Palmyra 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2011 at 00:30:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by bgag - uploaded by bgag - nominated by bgag -- Bgag (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry there noise consistant with using an unsharp mask tool around the edges of the building, additionally its dull appearance means I cant support Gnan garra 05:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because IMO relics are almost always interesting. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirchenburg Birthälm.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 20:18:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Otto Schemmel - uploaded by Otto Schemmel - nominated by Burghiu -- Burghiu (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Burghiu (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: there is a watermark in the bottom-left corner. Grand-Duc (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2011 (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.

(UTC)

File:Jagtlust-detailhek-9070.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2011 at 15:11:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Efraa-marlies - uploaded by Efraa-marlies - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the simplicity and the details from this picture -- Basvb (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe in including simple subject that we might take for granted, but this one could be more interesting, like if the photographer shot it from a higher angle, maybe changed the lighting... --IdLoveOne (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think on the current angle it is better than it would be on a higher angle. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you considered nominating this picture as a Valued image? --Snaevar (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really known with the valued image process and the differences. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An valued image is a image that is best within a scope. To put this more simply, images are being judged in comparison with other images of similar objects. For example, this image would, presumably be compared with other railing photos on commons. This is different from Featured Pictures in that way, that Featured pictures are the best of commons, but not within a scope like Valued images are.--Snaevar (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rathaus Großbottwar neu edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2011 at 12:36:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Felix König (original photograph), Papa Lima Whiskey (this derivative edit) - nominated by the latter.
Info Shadows lifted, addressing a complaint with the version nominated a few days earlier. -- Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good rework. -- Felix König ✉ 12:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a little bit tight but illustrates the subject very well. The lighting is very good, the colors are great. What I like the most, though, is that the subject is pin-sharp. Good job. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Belfort-Pano-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 08:02:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Est-enveloppe battery, near the fort du Salbert.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting place, good light. Yann (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tree tilt suggests curved horizon artefact. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Komposition, Licht, ... --Böhringer (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition needs a bit more space on the top side - too much cut on the top right (trees). --Aktron (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful winter scenery.--MrPanyGoff 10:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a very beautiful image. But the composition doesn't convince me, due to the too large width and too short height, and the central building. Maybe cutting off part of it. And correcting the obvious geometric distortion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Belfort-Pano-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 08:01:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View to Belfort city (under clouds) seen from the Salbert hill.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose About half of the image is sky and cloud without any interesting features. Also I don't like the sun facing right in the middle. Yann (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann.--Snaevar (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also per Yann. Perhaps (if the metadata is correct) it could also be improved if it was taken near the end of the day? That way the sun wouldn't interfere with the shot, and it could also give good lighting. LeavXC (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The metadata are correct. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 17:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daniela Mercury - Claridália 9.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2011 at 02:56:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ministério da Cultura - uploaded by Truu - nominated by Rodrigogomesonetwo -- Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Severe compression artifacts/noise in the background. Very expressive indeed, yet her mouth is hidden. Very valuable but not a FP imho. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Her right elbow is cut off. Also, I agree with Murilbert on the hidden mouth.--Snaevar (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup I knew someone would oppose for that. I'd support if you have an uncutoff version. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. It seems that the Ministry's photographer took the picture like that: [1]. Maybe I'll have a better shot with this one: [2] --200.101.124.243 13:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Icebreaker Stephan Jantzen in Stadthafen Rostock 2010-12-28 perspective correction-GD.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 02:45:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Grand-Duc -- Grand-Duc (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain due to the nomination of my own work. -- Grand-Duc (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overexposed? Still, for the subject matter, likely rarity of getting it and cause I like the angle and light directions.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had the same feeling that it might be slightly overexposed ; yet, I just love the colors, lighting, and general atmosphere of this one, along with the composition. Given I live in Québec City, I am keen on pictures that do capture the cold. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The histogram shows very few pixels that are at 255, so I would say that image is not overexposed at all. It is very sharp, the composition is great and the colors are fantastic. FP to me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support "cool" --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, interesting subject, and for a change from birds and insects. ;o) Yann (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support What's wrong with birds and insects though? Per Alchemist. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be nice if the crop wasn't so tight on the top, but still a great shot. Steven Walling 08:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:On the edge - free world version.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 22:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Critique is welcome -- Niabot (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to like this image, and I am a fan of most your work, technical illustrations, renderings, and Anime artwork. But I have several problems with this image. The rock texture on the left looks washed out and not very believable, the river has something going on with perspective, just at the waterfall it seems we look down on it at a steeper angle, the grass at the edge of the river looks smudged together (I'm missing some crisp edge here, the grass just blurrily blends into its own reflection). The gate looks unmotivated and just pasted into the landscape (connect it with some bushy grass around the posts maybe?). The waterfall itself lacks crispness. You may be going for a certain look here, but this has too much the feel of amateurish watercolor. --Dschwen (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kawaii :) Masur (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC) ps. I can only criticize the hand holding "the staff (?)". I don't see the fingers very natural, while holding this item. Gives me a slight impression of misfit. Masur (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good work! But, as usual, I don't understand some things : Why manga woman rhymes with big tits? Why the landscape is also oversaturated (flickr kitsch) and why I cannot determine the educational value of this image? best regards --Citron (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let me comment on this. So "big tits" and this image in general is some kind of archetypal manga drawing. And, I need to admit that one either likes this style (I'm not saying - manga in general) or not. Similar to one of the previous Niabot's nomination, where the "tilted camera" POV was disapproved, but was typical for manga on the other hand. Masur (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colorspace from oversaturated image File:Dundus Square.jpg. Visible color distribution near the edges of the RGB-Cube.

- Comment "Why manga woman rhymes with big tits?" Since every time i present an image, with a girl that is less developed, someone claims to see child pornography. "Why the landscape is also oversaturated[?]" It's a colorfull drawing. Oversaturation is a technical issue, that does not apply to images like this one, since it isn't. ^^ --Niabot (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a huge difference between "less developed" and "completely oversized". There's nothing proportional about her breasts, one is spilling over her arm, even—so what's the real reason? Why not draw something a little more realistic and less like misogyny? Maedin\^talk 17:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do we need to discuss the size of breasts? For self education you can follow this link (rating:safe). I'm also willing to mention this deletion request: Futanari.png If you look at the last example, and also read the arguments, then we might start a discussion. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, we don't, particularly not here! Please disregard my comment. Maedin\^talk 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm myself an illustrator particulary influenced by the manga, IMO it is a style aimed primarily the young's. In fact, it's regrettable to mislead the young reader of Wikipedia with free and discrete pornography. I prefer your example because the choice is assumed. In this featured picture candidate, I find that the nudity isn't justified, as the landscape catches also our attention. When I talk about oversaturation, I talk in fact the choice of colors, IMO I find this little bit exaggerated for a sun so high in the sky. :) --Citron (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would tend to say that the majority of the audience from this style is over 18, since most of the commercial works are rated at least 16. Series created for the younger audience are an exception in numbers, even if some of them are very popular. Meaning that the number of works intended for an older audience is larger, even if the number of published copies is lower. Regarding the oversaturation: Since the image is not technically oversaturated, you can always reduce the saturation without artifacts. If it would be to less saturated, you can't increase saturation without visible errors. --Niabot (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Well it's manga so the colors or landscape do not have to make sense ;-) --Aktron (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pro2 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb work Rastrojo _(D•ES) 15:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not educational, nor is it one of our best examples of manga style. See this and this as examples of featured quality work in the genre. Steven Walling 21:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hope you know the difference between manga and anime style. All three would be more fitting to anime, but as you should know, the style has a wide variety. It shows, instead of the two previously mentioned examples, that the style isn't limited to simple outlines, lighting and backgrounds. --Niabot (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I honestly don't care. The fact that is that this is a cartoon of a topless woman in a fantasy setting. It's not particularly good compared to other featured work, and no person outside Commons would say it's educational if they saw it. Steven Walling 08:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral just not really in the mood to vote in favor of something that isn't actually something. (Slight weirdness aside) I'm not really sure we need a drawing of a girl with her nipples hanging out, or I'd be more in favor if it was cultural or historic. Maybe I'm not being fair to anime and maybe in time it will gain more respect like those of other art forms. Although I do like the idea of users being able to nominate artwork of their own that isn't photographic, computer rendered or totally EV-related - not that EV arguments can't be made for this - if only to check out users' art, creativity and such. =) --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support i like her big tits :-) Bunnyfrosch (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per Stephen Walling and Dschwen.--Snaevar (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually since I reviewed the image it was (in my opinion) considerably improved. I like the new waterfall much better than the old one, the new riverbank is an improvement and the light/shadow around the gate is much nicer too. --Dschwen (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the info. I wasn´t quite sure how I should vote on a manga picture. Steven Walling´s vote made the most sense to me about what I should look for, but the reasoning behind the vote was based on Dschwen thoughts, as I agreed with him, and I still do in all aspects but one. I still think that the left bedrock could be sharper, but I don´t feel like that is reason enough to oppose the picture. I therefore change my vote to Neutral.--Snaevar (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There is something wrong with the perspective of the river, which looks like that Escher engraving in which the water is flowing upward (here) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support i know that it was very much of work for the user. i have seen the first lines of it and can see now the result: a wunderful work. alofok * 17:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very good work. -- Felix König ✉ 19:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong Support I have seen this work evolve and it is brilliant. Keep up the good work niabot! --Paddy (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trogon surrucura -Parque Nacional do Itatiaia, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil-8 (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 04:27:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dario Sanches - uploaded by Snowmanradio using File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Anyone else think this could benefit from a bit of cropping on the right? To balance the space? --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose downsampled. chromatic noise and artifacts. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 05:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is OK, except for some noise, but the crop is imbalanced, and the background looks too cluttered. And Peter, how do you know it is downsampled? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the camera model of this shot enables pictures of 4,288 × 2,848 pixels at maximum resolution. my assumption was that is was shot upright and then cropped (i am aware of lower resolution settings which come along with this camera). even if the original author can disprove this assumption - chromatic noise and artifacts are my main reasons for opposing. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 06:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peter Weis.--Snaevar (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Molaire de Platybelodon grangeri perspective.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2011 at 18:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the 3-D effect caused by the shadow --Llez (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like the artificial shadow/background and the fail cutout at the lower left side. --Niabot (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Error Corrected, thanks --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great value. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Jebulon (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent Image --Ken Billington (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only because of the background, the colors match the tooth way too much, almost looks like glass or dirty ice. A black background would've been a more neutral background for this subject (a version with a scale would be good for educational purposes also). --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ¾ of my images are on white or black background for scientific publications but, in Commons, we are in science popularization which is very different. This year two laboratories, one French and Gabonese asked me two photo series : with and without background, the second set for publication on Internet ... the world is changing. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you apply a depth blur to the shadow? (or provide the raw image/cutout?) It looks odd that it isn't more blured further back. Somehow this is distracting and gives it really fake look. Some room for improvement. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is absolutely true! I do not master this point well, and I will work. I am a beginner in background... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artificial-looking background devalues it. Steven Walling 08:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Steven Walling. IMO a black background is better.--Citron (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good. -- Felix König ✉ 19:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 06:58:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Turbo imperialis, Turbinidae, Giant Green Turbo; shell diameter 8 cm; Originating from the Indian Ocean; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez| - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good one. thanks for the metadata. keep on rollin'. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Garrondo (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 08:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 19:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Question There is a light blue reflection on several shells and there are seemingly some variations in sharpness. Could you please describe your setup for these photos? :-) Grand-Duc (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The photos were taken by daylight in the shadow. The surface of the shell is glossy, so that one can hardly avoid all reflections. --Llez (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not about to ask for that every reflection is avoided, but I wanted to know its origin. :-) Thanks for explanation! Grand-Duc (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Alces alces (juvenile).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2011 at 20:54:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler

- nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit noisy and soft at full res, and distracting background, especially the blurry hooves right under its chin. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background. --Elekhh (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, a rare perspective of an animal that's gonna be huge when it's grown. Just sitting there enjoying a sunny day and I like being able to see the hoof like this, that way you know it's lying down. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Elekhh.--Garrondo (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a profile picture, I´ll support this image.--Snaevar (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but nothing special. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Body-bones3.png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 00:09:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niabot (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, high educational value. I would like to have more information about the accuracy before voting: did you use a model? which one? male or female? Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's basing on an older 3D-Scan (several layers) from Otto-von-Guericke Universität Magdeburg with different aspect ratio for each axis. I used this relatively low resolution images to adjust the bones that where modeled by hand. The outer surface is from MakeHuman and the bones got stretched/rotated to match the model. --Niabot (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the info. Could you include that in the description? Yann (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination The skeleton has some issues as a discussion at german wikipedia revealed. I will fix the problems and replace it with a corrected version. Until then the nomination should be stopped. --Niabot (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bones are stylised. The clavicle should clearly articulate with the sternum. It is not clear which is rib cartilage and which is rib bone. There should be more ankle and foot bones. The intervertibral discs are not represented properly. Not in the anatomical position. If used for educational purposes, it would need properly shaped bones. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) (11).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 14:55:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ken Billington - uploaded by Ken Billington - nominated by Ken Billington -- Ken Billington (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ken Billington (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why did you need a 1/2000s for this photo? A quarter of that with a accordingly reduced ISO rating to avoid such noise would have been "featurable", well, it could be even better if you hadn't cut the shadow of the bird (using the rule of third, maybe?). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition per Grand-Duc.--Snaevar (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sciurus niger.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2011 at 22:09:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Skyttea -- Skyttea (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Skyttea (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good and sharp, but the background is too distracting and busy for a FP. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good light and well caught moment. Do not like the centered composition and the DOF is a little to shallow. The head is in focus, which is most important, but I would have appreciated if the rest of the body had been a tad sharper. --Slaunger (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support DOF is a bit shallow, but a photo of a squirrel is one of luck and you seem to have either gotten pretty close or had good zoom. Not the best composition, but natural. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per IdLoveOne. I do not feel that the background is distracting.--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Slaunger--Miguel Bugallo 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion, I feel that the focus on the squirrel serves a purpose.--Snaevar (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per slaunger.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Focus is OK, but the line in the background is disturbing. Yann (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aleppo Panorama.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 11:27:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Memorino - uploaded by Memorino - nominated by Peter Littmann -- Peter Littmann (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Peter Littmann (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Too young account, sorry. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Very poor quality, not properly cropped, disturbing hand at left, very distorted. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2011 (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:Imagoura Kasumi Coast10o4592.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2011 at 11:17:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me. -- 663h (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 663h (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not a whole lot EV. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The High Fin Sperm Whale. I'm missing the EV. One more sunset image ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per THFSW--Snaevar (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pano Alep 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2011 at 15:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support high quality, nice annotations.. it is also my favourite city in syria! did you walk a lot around the citadel? it is amazing the old town around the citadel.. Ggia (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Highly valuable and very, very high detail level. My only concern is the composition. There really isn't much composition in this. On the other hand the city is as it is. Can't make up my mind what to vote for it, so I will Abstain . --Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ excellent detail, but there are some vertical lines in the sky; probably a result of stitching!? bamse (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I cannot see them. Would you please care to add annotations to the picture? --Eusebius (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Seems to be a problem with the (flash) interactive image viewer. The image does not have any such lines. As far as image quality is concerned, I am more than happy. However like Slaunger I wonder about composition and whether this view shows something typical for Aleppo or just a random bunch of houses. Can't say since I haven't been there and therefore will

Abstain . bamse (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info Aleppo is more or less a "random bunch of houses", with several notable buildings, among which the citadel (from where the picture is taken), the Umayyad mosque and the souq (all annotated on the picture). I also tagged several other landmarks. I have made two panoramas of Aleppo, this one shows more interesting places. This is just for information, I totally understand that this picture can be considered not so featurable. --Eusebius (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support As long as there's no stitch errors, otherwise this is really nice. --IdLoveOne (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent panoramic view -- MJJR (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Âne d'Ethiopie.jpg

File:Feheregyhaza2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 11:48:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fortified church of Viscri in Transylvania

Info created by Vargatamas - uploaded and nominated by Burghiu Burghiu (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Burghiu (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could you geocode it? -- Thomas888b (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would be very happy to see an FP of this subject, but composition is not that good, and is bellow 2 Mpix. --Elekhh (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small: below 2 Mpixels. Yann (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2011 (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:Plan de Paris en 1657.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2011 at 16:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Johannes Janssonius - uploaded by Thesupermat - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high quality : I can see my house ! --Jebulon (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this first version of google earth.--Garrondo (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality given the age of the plan (354 years old), but otherwise I wouldn´t support it.--Snaevar (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MrPanyGoff 10:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's my city...! --Citron (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice quality. Steven Walling 08:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
InfoBizarre : le nord est au sud ouest.--Pline (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice copy of a historical map by a great cartographer. Unfortunately, the reproduction is not that good: chromatic aberration (especially in the upper part and upper left corner) and several disturbing dusts in the cartouche. -- MJJR (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of great detail, but the chromatic aberration is too strong for me. --Avenue (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rally Finland 2010 - shakedown - Dani Sordo 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2011 at 14:04:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another photo from Rally Finland 2010: see what the 4WD WRC -cars have done to the road. —kallerna™ 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is too distracting and the angle isn't ideal. File:Rally Finland 2010 - shakedown - Dani Sordo 3.jpg is better but I wouldn't recommend nominating it either. Royalbroil 01:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The background is IMO just perfect: sunny forest and field (sidenotice: the day was the hottest ever measured in Finland) + typical rallyspectators = iconic setting for Rally Finland. The angle is the same in other photo, and only because of the angle the worn out road can be seen. —kallerna™ 10:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The composition is certainly better in the nominated image than the suggested alternative, given a more practical crop and implementation of lead room/rule of thirds. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 11:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Royalbroil. Also, we allready have a FP from this event (File:Rally Finland 2010 - shakedown - Jari-Matti Latvala 3.jpg), so it´s only fair that any other FP nomination fill the same quality standards.--Snaevar (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still don't feel that these types of photos showoff the cars best, but it is good. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While the composition is superior IMO to the suggested alternative, I still feel it's rather awkward and underwhelming. The bar has been set high. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bar? We have only 4 rally FP's (2 from the same event + File:Andreas Waldherr Lavanttal Rallye 2009 2.jpg and File:Peugeot 206 WRC.jpg, which is rather small). Do all car FP's have to be panningshots or of historic cars? —kallerna™ 13:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four is by no means a small amount. I don't subscribe to the argument that the number of existing FPs on a particular topic precludes others from being promoted, but I feel the existing FPs in this case superior. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --shizhao (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto Covo January 2011-2b.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2011 at 16:11:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Island of Pessegueiro as seen from Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal, in a winter evening. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. Steven Walling 01:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral IMO not special enough for an FP.--Snaevar (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Thomas888b (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfectly sharp at high resolution (the wave at right), but very nice, with a very pleasant light, and geographical educational value to me. I like this picture very much.--Jebulon (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors, like an artist picture --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 23:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice atmosphere Ggia (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zentsu-ji in Zentsu-ji City Kagawa pref10s3s4592.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2011 at 05:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me --663h (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 663h (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice aesthetics. Just wondderful! -- Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Chromatic aberrations at full resolution. I am not expert enough to know if they are important enough to oppose.--Garrondo (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no strict rules here, so if you think that they are bad enough to oppose, go ahead. In themselves I don't think i would oppose, but with the distracting branch on the side, I vote Oppose. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per The High Fin Sperm Whale.--Garrondo (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Great image and time of day to take it, but disappointingly unsharp. The fault of the camera it seems, not that I'm an expert. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps, work that is more excellent than this will not appear for the time being in pagodas. --Laughaded (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality (esp. lack of sharpness and distortion at the bottom of the pic) are not sufficient for a FP. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion, good image quality and if anyone can improve it, then please do.--Snaevar (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CA scattered and major problems of perspective on the buildings of backgournd --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christ the Redeemer edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2011 at 15:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ILYES - uploaded by User:Felipe Menegaz - nominated by Rodrigogomesonetwo -- Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The viewpoint is unexpected. Looking up to the statue might be symbolic and quite surely it´s only possible to take a straight view on picture of the statue in a helicopter or at great distances. What makes me put a neutral vote however, is the noise/stains on the statue and the statue platform, seen in full resolution.--Snaevar (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I kind of like the composition: How Jesus appears to be mightier than the sun or like he's going to embrace it, it seems like an artistic choice in step with the religion, which I personally don't mind. Would be better if the sky wasn't so boring, a cloud or two.. The lens might not have been right though, almost seems the sunlight is too strong some places, but not enough for me to oppose this. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Terrible image quality, with extensive chromatic noise and blurriness caused by a denoising filter. A clear FPX case. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - noise/denoise... -- Felix König ✉ 19:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective not convincing. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but does not show the statue well. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good perspective, wrong angle. --Karelj (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halles de Paris, 1863.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2011 at 12:30:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Victor Baltard - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Info on the restoration is always a good idea.--Garrondo (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Some noise spots in the sky, but all of them are fixable. Also, it´s appearant that this picture has gone through some restoration, since the original has a yellowish tone and is smaller, but this one is black and white and is larger. I would like information on that restoration.--Snaevar (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It´s becoming quite obvious, that no one is going to fix those spots I mentioned erlier. Becouse of that, I change my vote to Oppose.--Snaevar (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until a restoration has been performed. removing dust and blemishes should be worth investing some time. keeping the original canvas colour is reasonable since decolourisation destroys the original feeling to this image. cropping of the original tiff is not necessary for a future restoration. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 05:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy as is, the quality seems very good to me, but if you can improve on near-perfection, then please do. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's good, but to become FP the remaining dust spots and lines should be fixed. -- H005 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Poppy closeup of a single blossom outside.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2011 at 20:07:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MatthiasKabel - uploaded by MatthiasKabel - nominated by MatthiasKabel -- MatthiasKabel (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus is a bit unfortunate. The subject is several flowers of the same type, and it would be better if the focus was on all of them. Also, the composition is tight at the bottom, as one of the flowers are cut out.--Snaevar (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the composition is confusing and the subject is not focused -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the focus is on the blossom, ok it's a very narrow DOF, but this is needed to guide the viewer to the single blossom. Otherwise it would be very confusing with many blossoms. Would you prefer File:Poppy closeup of a single blossom.jpg? MatthiasKabel (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment -- Please take a look at Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers and also at Commons:Quality images/Subject/Plant life, to see the kind of quality we expect here. Quality images candidates would have been a better place to start. Please correct the category to "Papaver rhoeas" -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think it's so bad, I like the colors and quality. It's an unusual choice, but not necessarily a terrible one... --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would like blurry flowers as a background, but here, some are right behind the main subject, so it is hard to tell where one starts and another begins. Worse, a blurry pedal is in front of the main subject. However, I think another shot here could produce a FP. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orangerie-kempten-2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2011 at 19:14:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Alofok alofok * 19:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- alofok * 19:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could you please add an English description, so that I know what it is? Mein Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit I'm not Alofok, I took charge of your request. :-) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- the foreground is distracting. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralThomas888b (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - imo the foreground isn't distracting, but part of the very good composition. -- Felix König ✉ 19:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition could be better. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info we can stop this candidature. alofok * 10:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Treatment-pond-raster.png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2011 at 05:18:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Jon C -- born of a Graphics Lab request, a diagram of the three types of reedbed sewage treatments. Original illustration. Jon C (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Спас Колев (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shizhao's right, an SVG of this image would be good too. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose，have svg: File:Treatment pond r1.svg--shizhao (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On all three diagrams I see a problem with the hill between the settlement tank and the treatment area. The problem is that the shadow is broken, at the far end of the hill and close to the center. Also, on the second diagram (from top) the outtake valve from the treatment area is half-cut off. Not the sort of quality I would expect from an FP.--Snaevar (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I'll fix this first. Jon C (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosas de La Vega.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2011 at 15:59:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Elberth - uploaded by Elberth - nominated by Elberth -- Elberth 00001939 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elberth 00001939 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's too small (it's below 2 MP) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:34, 11 January 2011 (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:Maslenica Bridge (D 8), Croatia.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 21:40:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grand-Duc (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please put in the location with the template (use this toolserver). --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Location is done --Pudelek (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Спас Колев (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stereo snow crystals.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2011 at 19:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Agricultural Research Service - uploaded by Sasha Krotov - nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support! --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good work. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Bunnyfrosch (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Garrondo (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, but I don't see anything extraordinay here other than being a stereo pair. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The two images are reversed. This is not parallel stereoscopy , but cross stereoscopy ! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now Good equation between photos and the category. Shame not to have reversed the picture: the perception is better in parallel stereoscopy. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. Why stereo? I don't see anything extraordinary. Too tight crop at right and at left--Miguel Bugallo 21:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeas others.--Jebulon (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Emperor-Dragonfly-(5).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 14:51:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ken Billington - uploaded by Ken Billington - nominated by Ken Billington -- Ken Billington (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ken Billington (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing! --IdLoveOne (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 19:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sharpness is not very high and small details on the legs, wings, antenna and the underbelly of the thorax were seemingly destroyed by denoising (ISO 1000 is likely too high for a EOS 50D) and/or a JPEG compression beyond a wise measure. I would have expected a higher perceived sharpness on such a downscaled image. Grand-Duc (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to clarify, the image has not been downscaled --Ken Billington (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then your licensing template ("If you would like to use, license, or purchase a high resolution copy of this image...") misleaded me on that point, I thought that your camera makes 15-MPx-images. What kind of lens did you use? (I'm not aware of a lot for Canon EF having the used 400mm focal length) :-) Grand-Duc (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC) And to explain my opposing vote somewhat: I guess that I'm spoiled by the excellent fokus stacked images of insects made by user:Richard Bartz, taking them as a benchmark.[reply]

Comment It's true that the images of Richard Bartz are outstanding but they are "macro" images. This image of the dragonfly was taken with a 400mm telephoto lens from a distance of approx 6 metre. Since the image was not full frame it was cropped but not downscaled. i.e. the size of the dragonfly in pixels is exactly the same as it when was photographed.

Support Steven Walling 01:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Royalbroil 01:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon C (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Southwold Sea Front.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 14:30:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Thomas888b - uploaded by Thomas888b - nominated by Thomas888b -- Thomas888b (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thomas888b (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality-wise it looks fine to me. However, it just doesn't stand out enough to be a FP IMO. Try COM:QI. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per THFSW --Snaevar (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An slightly different perspective of the sea front, but the composition does not work for me. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's too small. For this image I really would rather see a larger version with more magnification of the scenery. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure it falls into big enough to become a Featured Picture :-) Thomas888b (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but that's not how I mean. I mean I can't really see enough detail because the image is too small, I would've liked if it was bigger so I could see more features of the houses on the pier in the background for instance. But if you couldn't get the magnification or zoom for that it probably would've been better just to focus on a nearby object to photograph. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thomas888b (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ebony Bones-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 19:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alterna2 - uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it: The outfit, the pose, the background, the look on her face and the direction she's looking in all make for an interesting subject. Really makes me wonder what she's about to, I'm guessing, sing. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Well, this picture got some minor issues like the microphone stand is cut off and the backlight is cousing some overexposure and finally that the right hand is underexposed (I´m being picky here). What makes me put a neutral vote however is the wow factor, feel to the touch, not special enough or whatever you´ll want to call it. As both the guidelines and some FP users have pointed out, that is acchived by side-lightning, but not backlight like on this picture.--Snaevar (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose downsampled. would support a full res version. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good resolution and colourful. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Malá Fatra - pillar of the gondola lift.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 21:48:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good QI, but not special enough for FP. -- H005 23:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the clear difference between fore- and background. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, dark--shizhao (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose underexposed, subject unfortunately just boring in the middle --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per carshten.--Snaevar (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phyllidia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 11:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron-- Citron (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Evalowyn (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous color. Steven Walling 06:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image of animal in natural habitat. --Elekhh (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon C (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Vallee-brouillard.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 19:17:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fog in the valley of the Savoureuse river at the sunset seen from the Ballon d'Alsace (France).

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe not the sharpest image, but wonderful colors, nice composition, stunning atmosphere and high resolution --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per kaʁstn. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 21:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per kaʁstn. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tres bon! -- H005 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 06:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support even if I would like more sharp image. Ggia (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Adi Holzer Werksverzeichnis 849 Die Taufe.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2011 at 23:31:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Adi Holzer - uploaded by Michael Gäbler

- nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info John the Baptist baptize Jesus. Handcolored etching by Adi Holzer 1997 in the size 430 x 340 mm. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Calibas (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one also has symbols in it, right? --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This etching reminds of the Baptism of Jesus written in the Bible by the Gospel of Mark chapter 1 verse 9-11: « Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."» Adi Holzer wrote the beginning of an old Latin hymn Veni Creator Spiritus and painted two symbols: the golden Eye of Providence shows the presence of the Holy Trinity and the dove symbolizes the descending of the Holy Spirit on Jesus. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Greyhound Racing 2 amk.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2011 at 16:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info This is a panning shot of greyhound racing dog. Such a panning shot is much more difficult than a car panning shot as those dogs don't move as constant as a car. Those dogs don't just move horizontal (like a car) but also have very quick vertical movements - which is pretty annoying for a photographer :-) (Here you can have a look how such a race looks like.) Created, uploaded & nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (座谈) 16:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AngMoKio (座谈) 16:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough and too noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty amazing. Yann (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice action shot --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose luminance noise in the shadows and not tack sharp enough for an action shot. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Difficult circumstances mitigate noise and unsharpness. Donarreiskoffer (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a nice picture, but it doesn't surprise me a lot. Thank you, --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support High encyclopedic value, very acceptable quality given the circumstances. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The dog is IMO well captured, but the fence behind him is blurry.--Snaevar (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fence is meant to be blurry as it is a panning shot. This means only the moving object is sharp while the background has motion blur. --AngMoKio (座谈) 19:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the effect panning does to pictures. However, since this is a personal choise of mine, nowhere to be seen in the guidelines I kept the vote in neutral, but also as nothing really convinces me to support this image.--Snaevar (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tamba52 (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Maurilbert --Schnobby (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good Przykuta → [edit] 15:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Added to category Dog racing ;)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Exif-Data would be nice... Could you add them please? And the dog needs a identification. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added the EXIF-Info. Concerning identification: It is a Greyhound dog, the info which exact type of Greyhound it is, is on the way. --AngMoKio (座谈) 10:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Support now --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good! Bjoertvedt (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hover dog is hovering. ;-) Steven Walling 06:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Avenue (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Ver[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough and too noisy. As The High Fin Sperm Whale--Miguel Bugallo 23:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon C (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mathias K 16:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Horyu-ji10s3200.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2011 at 16:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Horyu-ji temple in Ikaruga, Nara Prefectue, Japan.

Info all by me -- 663h (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 663h (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:58, 6 January 2011
Neutral Quality is lacking somewhat, ans composition seems a bit unbalanced. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry spire on the top of the Five story proganda and at the trees. Also I agree with Maurilbert on the unbalanced composition.--Snaevar (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Snaevar --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kreuzberg, Rhön.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 14:26:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Support: very good composition, quality is good enough, lighting is very nice. I also like the perspective, just the pixelated cables are a bit disturbing --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry tower and unsharp wires.--Snaevar (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The intended composition is interesting, yet it seems the focus (camera-wise) doesn't match the focus (composition-wise). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --Llorenzi (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whatever it is it was photographed pretty well. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great in the snow. TFCforever (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Account age and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lindenstumpf, Panorama, 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 08:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phacochère9.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 09:57:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~--Breawycker (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Account too young. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 21:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. :-) Grand-Duc (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The blurriness around the left edge of the upper left tusk is a bit disturbing, but otherwise this is very good. --Avenue (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Well observed: Correction made. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that's definitely improved things near the tip of the tusk. --Avenue (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jonathunder (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Viaduc Saillard.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2011 at 20:16:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by FrancoisFC - uploaded by FrancoisFC - nominated by FrancoisFC -- FrancoisFC (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FrancoisFC (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose，构图太乱--shizhao (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC) (Translation: chaotic composition. Jon C (talk))[reply]
Oppose too hard chromatic aberrations and disturbing tree elemets --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO nothing disqualifyingly bad. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it very much. --Lošmi (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Strombus sinuatus 2010 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2011 at 09:38:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Laciniate conch shell (Strombus sinuatus).
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Citron (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support pretty good. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sidik iz PTU (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Tetragonias njalilus 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 20:49:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 21:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a masking job ! Wow ! Not a fan of the flash lighting, but very good image.--Jebulon (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralNoise but very interesting. --Citron (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support best in Web! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totodu74 (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Royal Palace of Madrid 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2011 at 13:48:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by bgag - uploaded by bgag - nominated by bgag -- Bgag (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It looks like the brightest surfaces have spilled over the neighboring shadows. The central crest appears flat. Maybe the time of the day was not optimal for this shot ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Info The CoA is the one of king Philip V of Spain (1683-1746), first (and third, because he abdicated -1724- in favor of his son, and assumed the throne again after his son's death a few months later !) king of the Spanish Bourbon dynasty. Please notice the collars of the Orders of the Golden Fleece (spanish), and Holy Spirit (french). Philip V was a grand son of Louis XIV of France, and was born "Duke of Anjou" in Versailles.--Jebulon (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough sharp. --Karelj (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per maurilbert.--Snaevar (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the composition and clarity of the image, but there's something wrong with the edges of the stone. -- H005 23:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stolb & Bus.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2011 at 14:57:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sidik iz PTU - uploaded by Sidik iz PTU - nominated by Sidik iz PTU -- Sidik iz PTU (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sidik iz PTU (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't believe such a picture to be featurable without a proper context in its description. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Needs details about the bus and location, and so on. Image documentation is inadequate for FP. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some information about this accident can be found here. But in Russian. Well I would try to write description in English and in Russian. Sidik iz PTU (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support There was a traffic accident - A bus hit a w:utility pole. Pictures speak 1,000 words, so what more context do you need beyond your own eyes? --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting picture about a traffic accident. i think, there aren't many pictures about this topic. alofok * 10:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, no reason for nmination for FP. --Karelj (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral IMO this picture is a QP, not an FP. The image is lacking somewhat in sharpness, both at the busses and their surroundings. Perspective or the timing of the shot could be better as the picture is a bit misleading, becouse there are two guided busses in the background, but as the crashed bus blocks the gap between them from view, they seem to be only one.--Snaevar (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know the transportation in that town, but noting the difference in coloring, the main bus being green, I think it's just a regular bus? --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are one green bus and two blue trolleybuses on this photo. All regular. Sidik iz PTU (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a slight misunderstanding going on. Guided busses are led by markings or wires, as those two blue busses are. Let´s look at the front window of the green bus, and look at where the end of the first blue bus is. Now, let´s compare that to the gap between the green bus and the first blue bus on the picture on photobus.mrsk.ru that Sidink linked to erlier. You would see that this same gap is much wider. Anyway, what I am saying is that little gap on this photo is confusing, as it gives the impression (or makes it look like) that it´s one big blue bus, but not two as it should be.--Snaevar (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Photo from fotobus.msk.ru has been made by me too. I can upload it here but it looks less featured. Sidik iz PTU (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mona Lisa.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2011 at 15:24:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Leonardo da Vinci - uploaded by Dbenbenn - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First off, I notised the line on Mona Lisa´s forehead. I checked the image on Louvre and it´s there too, so I suppose I can´t complain about that. However, this image is flaky. Also, the image is damaged at the top edge of the picture, and in a vertical line from the top to Mona Lisa´s head.--Snaevar (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The damage is on the original. I find the image is bit too dark to be featured. See the Louvre's own pictures: [3], [4]. I would support a lighter version. Yann (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree on that the damage is on louvre´s pictures as well. I do think however that the best comparision is to the painting itself, so I am going to wait and see if anyone on FP has allready seen this painting.--Snaevar (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I uploaded a lighter version, and I can now support. Yann (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Haven't been to the Louvre, but this version looks pretty good, age and restorations considered I think.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this version has no metadata and no proof of being a photo taken at the louvre. would be nice if someone can verify this. uploading over the already existing nomination is not very cricket - please consider uploading an alternative version. opposing/supporting votes for the first nomination must not automatically oppose/support this new version. a higher resolution version taken with a high-end camera under correct lighting circumstances would be very beneficial. the current featured picture of the mona lisa provides similar quality in terms of resolution and detail - a different whitebalance, colour correction (depending on your pov) does not qualify for another featured picture. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Claus (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Betula penuda at sunset in winter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2011 at 14:14:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Trance Light - uploaded by User:Trance Light - nominated by User:Trance Light -- Trance Light (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trance Light (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many brances of the tree are cut off at the top edge of the image but also to the left and right. Also, many brances of the tree are blurry.--Snaevar (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, bad crop. Sidik iz PTU (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Sidik iz PTU, sorry--Marmoulak (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anjar - decumanus vue de l'est.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2011 at 16:09:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much and hard chromatic aberrations imo --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Claus (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --shizhao (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral IMO Overexposed--Snaevar (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Notre Dame Paris portail du Cloître tympan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 11:13:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Jebulon.
Tympanum of the "Closter Gate", Northern façade of Notre-Dame de Paris. Two levels above: Legend of Theophilus, Level below (lintel): Birth and childhood of Jesus, according to Matthew's Gospel. "Comics" of the 13th century -- Jebulon (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ouch, such framing with the top (and base) of the arch cropped, it does hurt. --Elekhh (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, it was a great dilemma to me, but the subject is the tympanum, not the arch, please don't be hurt ! As I wanted to show details of the sculptures and the stories telled, I was compeled to stay as close of the subject as possible, and a framing with more angels would be disturbing in my opinion. --Jebulon (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am sorry, slight tilt / distortion, loss of sharpness in the edges, the crop doesn't convince me, and it's lacking the wow I'd expect for an FP. -- H005 23:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to be sorry. No worries. Thanks for reviewing and feedback anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, sorry. Quality (unsharpness, noisy) and composition (framing, perspective (-> distortions)) aren't featured. But, I do not miss the WOW effect. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question tilt?--Claus (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful artwork, well captured and annotated. I would also like to see a wider view, but the crop seems sensible given the photographer's intent. The minor tilt/distortion and lack of sharpness in the corners are tolerable IMO. --Avenue (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pic du Midi de Bigorre cloudy Wikimedia Commons.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2011 at 15:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by Patriot8790 --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was there 41 years ago - it has changed --Schnobby (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --Pudelek (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Excellent and well-made panorama.--The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nur ein kleiner Stitchingerror, sonst perfekt --Böhringer (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning, Bravo! Royalbroil 00:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unrealistic (the fence, for instance...) deformed picture. Tourists and foreground right and left are disturbing.--Jebulon (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, the fence isn't real? :) --Von.grzanka (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportThomas888b (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting projection. please provide metadata and information on image stitching. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 16:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good. -- Felix König ✉ 19:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it. --Von.grzanka (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unrealistic (the fence, for instance...) deformed picture (As Jebulon). Too tight crop at bottom--Miguel Bugallo 23:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fence is unreal and deformed: see note--Miguel Bugallo 23:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Partly for the tourists (just close enough to intrude, without being a feature), but mainly for the deformed handrail. Lovely backdrop though. --Avenue (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good pano. --High Contrast (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tunicate komodo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 11:28:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron-- Citron (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture and there are not featured pictures of tunicates-- Citron (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me correct the comment on that the number of featured pictures of tuncates, as File:Seasquirt.jpg is a featured picture in that scope.--Snaevar (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. You're right, but it isn't the only and principal subject of this picture, this tunicate isn't entirely visible. --Citron (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon C (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've often tried, but never managed to shoot such a good unterwater image. (And find consolation in the fact that's probably just insufficient equipment. :-) -- H005 23:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Âne d'Ethiopie.jpg (2nd attempt), featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2011 at 00:52:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by G. Severeyns - uploaded and restorated by Citron - nominated by IdLoveOne (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info In the last nomination some voters requested more work be done to the former version of the image, which Citron agreed with himself. A few days later this new version was uploaded, so I'd thought I'd see if you guys like this version more. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Garrondo (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Marmoulak (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totodu74 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ballon-alsace2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 19:14:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Statue of Jeanne d'Arc at the summit of the Ballon d'Alsace (France).

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, interesting lighting conditions. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 21:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Maurilbert, but the angle of view is not the best (even if it is chosen because of the lighting conditions). Furthermore I think that the lightning rod wire is really ugly and disturbing.--Jebulon (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Jebulon. --Karelj (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Jebulon --Miguel Bugallo 21:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Angle .--Elekhh (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support You have to really be looking for that wire, and you're not supposed to be - you're supposed to look at the statue. My only problem is that you can't see the face. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong side of the statue. Yann (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as jebulon--Claus (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a good angle, IMO, sorry--Marmoulak (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canis lupus arctos (Pocock, 1935).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 20:51:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I don't really like the flash lighting, but still very good work. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a good doggy. ;) --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the too hard light. -- H005 21:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cannenburg Vaassen.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 18:43:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lycklama - uploaded by Lycklama - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really love this picture with the dutch snow/ice setting. Also I like the way the castle is in the background of it. -- Basvb (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong tilt, and I actually do not like the castle being hidden. -- H005 23:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Karelj (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As H005 --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Driedubbele-Mitrailleurkazemat-X-510368 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 18:31:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NELUZ WR - uploaded by NELUZ WR - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this picture, the sky the grass and the collors, (I've tried cropping of a part at the bottom, but I think this doesn't make the picture better) -- Basvb (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose somewhat interesting, but it's oversaturated, noisy and there are blurry parts and heavy chromatic aberrations. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten.--Snaevar (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely not up to par, technically speaking. Overphotoshopped, maybe. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 22:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject overwhelmed by fore- and background .--Elekhh (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it has little illustratie value? It's a en:Rijksmonument and might be used in articles on bunkers. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maxim Gorky LOC Restored edit1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2011 at 11:22:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Unknown - uploaded by Fallschirmjäger - nominated by Claus
Support -- Claus (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose many spots have been left (hair, face, not the background, etc.) - would support a properly restorated version. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 15:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peter Weis.--Snaevar (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Amga (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Account too young -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hmm, compared to the original I think a pretty good job was done, but... -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old and wise.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 15:51:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ferdinand Reus - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Atamari -- Atamari (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Atamari (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Not by age but by capacity is wisdom acquired." --Titus Maccius Plautus

IdLoveOne (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yann (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - especially when zooming in this picture shows it's beaty. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's cropped too tightly, but this is an example of breaking the rules to good effect. Jonathunder (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jonathunder --Schnobby (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yes, we need good people portraits! As for being wise, well, we never know... Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great portrait, valuable subject. Steven Walling 06:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- What is it ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...The face of an elderly African woman. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...And why should it be featurable ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because it's a very beautiful pic (but IMHO too noisy) --Phyrexian ɸ 10:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy. --Phyrexian ɸ 10:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice one. i like the reflections in her eyes. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 15:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kadellar (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Taken Prisoner of War, Singapore.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 13:05:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A scan of my grandfather's army paybook, listing when he was taken prisoner by the Japanese at the fall of Singapore. The book stayed with him throughout his time at Changi PoW camp, and while he was working on the 'Death Railway'. Created by the UK Government - uploaded by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry - nominated by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please categorize the image, and put metadata from photoshop or scanner instead of the current written metadata.--Snaevar (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Willdo. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should now be done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Snaevar (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I see nothing featurable in a 1942 book's image. Remember that it is the visual value we are recognizing here, not the documental importance. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Remember that it is the visual value we are recognizing here, not the documental importance. I'm not sure, and not so categorical. A high educational or documental value can mitigate a not-so-good visual value IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Oppose~~ As Alvesgaspar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelj (talk • contribs) 22:22, 9. Jan. 2011 (UTC) Struck due to missing signature. User:Karelj notified on his discussion page. Grand-Duc (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, I forgett signature. --Karelj (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing outstanding. --Elekhh (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject and image, poor --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. -- H005 23:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find it historically interesting.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask why? This is my first nomination and first real venture into commons, so any pointers would be wonderful :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adansonia grandidieri04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 23:09:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Bgag - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info This was nominated once before, but apparently never transcluded. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H005 23:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Evalowyn (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC) dont have 50 edits, bah. Evalowyn (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)But now i do! Evalowyn (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Carschten.--Snaevar (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Przykuta → [edit] 08:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support great (twice) --Schnobby (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good average quality, lightning not very good (hard shdows at the left third), composition not featured (tree just boring in the middle, imo the crop at bottom a bit tight). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 21:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - hard shadows, much too tight crop of the trunk mirroring. Bjoertvedt (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support powerful image. --Elekhh (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. --Avenue (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support True, the subject is right in the center, but it's EV is great. --Murdockcrc (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- Wolf im Wald 17:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian ɸ 10:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Average quality but it's a rare picture. --Citron (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Erdfunkstelle Fuchsstadt - 18-Meter-Antenne.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 08:19:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support JJ Harrison (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H005 23:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition and colors. --Nikopol (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really nothing so oustanding. I would vote for something like this : - Benh (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monument Valley 10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 23:07:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Bgag - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this landscape and also this photo. After my visit the white rental car had been red like the Monument Valley. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it is a nice motive, but the composition is unbalanced and too tilted to the right, besides the left cropping is not good. Include the shole mountain-foot, or none of it... Bjoertvedt (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bjoertvedt.--Snaevar (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition, it's asymmetrical but somehow good. This is sort of more realistic I think than photos that show a centered mountain. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the denoising has affected the stones too much, they are looking much softer than they are in reality. (I've been there.) Composition is great! -- H005 23:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radfahrer Winterberg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 23:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by H005 - uploaded by H005 - nominated by H005 -- H005 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H005 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice perspective, making the viewer want to know more. --Elekhh (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little educative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dorflinde Haselbach, 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 08:17:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good use of light and shadow. All criteria satisfied. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MrPanyGoff 17:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wasn't there a different version? --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the second time that this picture is being nominated as FP. In the first time, there where two versions, you are right about that, but since this is the second time this picture has been nominated there is no need for different versions.--Snaevar (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Would you be kind enough to explain your reasoning for the benefit of your fellow reviewers and the nominator? You may use Chinese if you wish. Translators are available for those of us who don't read Chinese. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remarkable tree! -- H005 23:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Tokyo Tower during daytime.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 14:42:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Laitr Keiows - uploaded by Laitr Keiows - nominated by Laitr Keiows -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you add geocoordinates of the location (Roppongi Hills?) from where the image(s) were taken? bamse (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Done for both camera and object location. There were EXIF-embedded GPS coordinates. Laitr Keiows (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me, it's overexposed and tilted... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's tilted, see my annotation. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maurilbert.--Snaevar (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be great if you could add EXIF data to the image (information about the camera, shutter, aperture, etc...) --Murdockcrc (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I must disagree. The quality of this photo of such a tall object looks very good to me. The background is maybe a bit hazy. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Maurilbert --Pudelek (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail, although I agree it's a bit too bright. -- H005 23:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support It's a bit titled (and I'd like to see that fixed), but the overall impression is featured for me. --Lošmi (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Will support, if the slight tilt is fixed.--Nikopol (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks tilted even on the thumbnail - Benh (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CCW tilt, even if minor, is disturbing by a subject which is all about verticality. --Elekhh (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imagoura Kasumi Coast04bs4440.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2011 at 04:04:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- 663h (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 663h (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is this open? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Strictly speaking, this is not open, no.--Snaevar (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skyline Frankfurt 2011-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 23:25:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by der Wolf im Wald - - nominated by Jebulon

Frankfurt am Main, evening.-- Jebulon (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I find this picture wonderful -- Jebulon (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice all around. Steven Walling 06:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposure and lack of sharpness on the buildings, especially on the top of the building with the triangle logo and also on the top of the building with the S shaped logo next to it. I would expect similar amount of quality on the buildings as there is on the sidewalk paraell to the river and the bridge. And those lines in the sky, I doubt that they are natural.--Snaevar (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I changed nothing in sky or somewhere else. Its all natural. I have not actually modified colours or saturation. ;-) -- Wolf im Wald 17:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --Murdockcrc (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Snaevar--shizhao (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry but I also find the buildings, which are the main subject here, somehow not so vivid and dynamic as they should be.--MrPanyGoff 09:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love the reflections, but I agree that too many of the buildings are washed out, unsharp or partly overexposed. The contrails also detract from the image IMO (if that's what the diagonal lines in the sky are), but the buildings are my main concern. --Avenue (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janusz J. (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit by anonymous user -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not understand the arguments that have been raised against it. -- H005 23:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted, overexposure, lack of sharpness. --Mylius (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The hotel Paris Las Vegas as seen from the hotel The Bellagio.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2011 at 23:11:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Jürgen Matern - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor angle and composition. The "Arc de Triomphe" is obscured, and the half building on the right with the "ph" logo is ugly. I don't know whether a shot from further right is possible, but to me, that's what this cries out for. The partially cropped water in front is also distracting (IMO it should extend all the way across, or be omitted completely). --Avenue (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination.--Paris 16 (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haliotis midae 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2011 at 14:58:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Haliotis midae, Haliotidae, Midas Ear Abalone; Length 16 cm; Originating from South Africa; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty... --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems to me that this specimen is too old and (sun?) bleached. The natural reddish colours of the outer side of the shell have been lost. --99of9 (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I don't agree. What you mean are specimens, which were cleaned and polished for decorative purposes. The original colour of the shell of living specimens is depicted here: http://www.21food.com/showroom/92871/product/Live-Abalone.html They agree with the picture above. --Llez (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Admittedly your link is less colourful than the one I'd looked at: http://www.gastropods.com/4/Shell_964.shtml However your specimen is still blander than the Namibian example you gave. When the shell was cleaned and polished, how long had the animal been dead? 99of9 (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know this page, also http://www.femorale.com.br/shellphotos/thumbpage.asp?family=HALIOTIDAE&cod=1003 and others. Most of the depicted shells there are cleaned (e.g. by ultrasound or mechanically), to remove the natural deposits of the shell (serpulids, chalk algae and so on). Please compare with other photos of living animals, e.g. http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.easterncapescubadiving.co.za/images/_large/IMG_0940.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.easterncapescubadiving.co.za/index.php%3Fpage_name%3Dmore%26list_id%3D53&usg=__Cg7mMO04QmajSXCovLPCd6y14SQ=&h=750&w=1000&sz=228&hl=de&start=16&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=F4y3F0bR64cMzM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=149&prev=/images%3Fq%3DHaliotis%2Bmidae%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=EjM0TZWkKo-Cswb_hqT_CQ, or http://wwf.panda.org/who_we_are/wwf_offices/south_africa/news/?93660/South-African-abalone-to-come-under-international-trade-controls and others. My specimen also shows these deposits. It always depends, what you want to show: a shell as it is found in nature (as here), or a treated, cleaned shell for show and presentation purposes. --Llez (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Chaunax stigmaeus dorsal view2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2011 at 14:45:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dr. Steve Ross - uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice modification! -- Marmoulak (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image quality, great encyclopedic value. -- MJJR (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality, but the modification reduced the encyclopedic value, since now the size is no longer apparent. Plus, a white background is more friendly to printers and IMO also to the eyes. --Nikopol (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The measure was cut by the edge of the image, I would have been criticized for letting it. You can add a scale if you want. For the white background, you're right, but did you know that white background consumes more electricity with your computer? And the black background brings out the fish that is mostly clear. --Citron (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Some clipping errors (right side of the lip and left fin). The distance of the frame should be about the same everywhere that is not the case for the left. But all that is minor. The educational value should take precedence over everything. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice quality. @Nikopol: Black background is monitor friendly, and IMO eye friendly. A white background version for printing could be easily generated if needed. --Elekhh (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - cool. Jonathunder (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eriphia verrucosa male 2009 G5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2011 at 09:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Warty crab Eriphia verrucosa, old male.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lighting is a bit harsh and there are some blown highlights, but still FP-worthy IMO. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per The High Fin Sperm Whale --Llez (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad background.--Claus (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Claus--shizhao (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is natural background, as is in wild. Stone with algae in a surf zone --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great image taken in the wild.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes for me! --Danny (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totodu74 (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Criteria satisfied and useful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support real and true background for a living animal. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad background. W.S. 15:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetenschatje (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pieris rapae ce1.jpg (2nd attempt), featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2011 at 19:16:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bruce Marlin, edited and uploaded by LeavXC - nominated by IdLoveOne (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info The original image was considered too tight (last nomination) a crop to succeed, so this edited and expanded version was created in an attempt to satisfy Commons's aesthetic, so I wanted to see if you guys like it more. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unnatural background, bad composition. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's basic black.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist. Maybe a crop extension to the left would do some good.--Snaevar (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT[edit]

Info Because I really, really, really, really, really think this is a good and feature-worthy photo (unless someone can make a good case why it isn't), I present my own alteration alternative. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Marmoulak (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no, still bad background for a living butterfly. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I get that, IMO though the quality of the insect itself is redeeming, and black is common for a scientific or biological image. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture imo. And I also do not see a problem with a black background. --Danny (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Danny, main subject is Pieris rapae, not background --Llez (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I also don´t like this trend towards black backgrounds. It´s not printer friendly, and in terms of aesthetics the color sceme and contrast (pale yellow / black) do not appeal to me.--Nikopol (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --McIntosh Natura (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 23:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Pieris_rapae_edit2.jpg

File:Spectroscopy overview.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2011 at 19:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created and nominated by Jon C -- Original illustration with annotations. Jon C (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jon C (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Specific sized SVGs seem to be having problems, or at least for this image. Still conditional support if whatever this is is scientifically accurate (and if anyone would like to give me or link me to a lesson about this, lazers? I might read it. :) --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IdLoveOne - can you tell me what you mean by "specific sized SVG"? I've been troubleshooting SVGs - there are loads of oddities with the thumbnail/rendering of MediaSVG. The image is scientifically accurate (I teach spectroscopy :) ) If you visit the image page on the Commons, the annotations and image notes should guide you to some readings. The idea was/is to create a network of scientific illustrations in the same style (e.g., see this) so readers can intuitively compare concepts; each image would be annotate and linked to one another so readers can go onto what they're interested in. Jon C (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know I was getting some kind of SVG error page.. -shrug- Thanks. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trauerhalle Herbert-Baum-Str 45 (Weiß) Jüdischer Friedhof Weißensee 5.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2011 at 08:13:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by OTFW - uploaded by OTFW - nominated by OTFW -- OTFW (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- OTFW (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated it seems, but also a bit noisy - Benh (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Oversaturated pseudo-HDR. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:19, 20 January 2011 (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:Hawaje-NoRedLine.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2011 at 17:15:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by IdLoveOne - nominated by Snaevar -- Snaevar (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator -- Snaevar (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Marmoulak (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon C (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totodu74 (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 14:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Thomas888b (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice. Jonathunder (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Evalowyn (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LuzLissabon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2011 at 17:17:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

panorama of the Estádio do Sport Lisboa e Benfica

Info created by Massimo Catarinella - uploaded by Massimo Catarinella - nominated by Snaevar -- Snaevar (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator -- Snaevar (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it is! It also was the picture of the week in Russian Wikipedia Football Project. Sidik iz PTU (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The idea was good. But there are some problems: the lightning was too good and the results are lots of shadows and otherwise a lot of blown out and overexposed details. The composition isn't featured imo, too. The crop at top and bottom seems a bit tight to me. At last the stitching is not perfect. There are some small stitching errors (yes, I sought with a magnifier ;-) ) and other stitching problems and I marked they who I find. So these are the reasons for my oppose vote. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kaʁstn --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Jebulon (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sortie de l'opéra en l'an 2000-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2011 at 14:20:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Albert Robida - uploaded by Mvuijlst - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting image, good restoration-- Paris 16 (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose numberous noise spots. See annonations for details.--Snaevar (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The blemishes, besides the age of the pic itself, are almost completely unnoticeable to me. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen this before. Nice futuristic image from 19th century. Very good quality, imo. --Lošmi (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lovely! MartinD (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 14:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting! --Citron (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating historic media. Steven Walling 01:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20101213 Suleymaniye Mosque Istanbul inside vertical Panorama.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2011 at 09:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support there are some little distortion in the right and left columns.. this image is consisting stitched images from vertical 28mm lens images. The image is high quality and demonstrates enough the interior of Suleymaniye mosque (which was recently completely renovated). -- Ggia (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stitching error at chandelere wires and light distortion between the windows above.--Snaevar (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OK please don't blame me for opposing everything... This one is nice, but common and usually, with similar view, you should feel like "tiny little thing looking up". Quite unusual choice of projection (although I should not criticize people on that given some of my past contributions over here ;) ), with horizontal lines straight and vertical lines curved. Did you rotate the source pictures, stitched them using cylindrical projection or alike, and them rotated back the result ? - Benh (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too heavy distortions in barrel of the vertical lines and numerous stitching errors due to paralax problems because no panoramic head was used. Also some lack of sharpness on the top as well as noise. In general a nice picture but needs a better technique. Sting (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Sting--shizhao (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Ggia (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calloselasma rhodostoma.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2011 at 18:00:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info : Malayan pit viper created by R. Soedirman - restorated, uploaded and nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A dangerous snake with a big smile! -- Citron (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a snake.--Claus (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info The link to the source file seems to be incorrect, this would be the right one. Great illustration, but I'm not shure whether really like the bright white background of the restoration or not. --El Grafo (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citron (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama de La Garde depuis la chapelle au matin.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2011 at 22:42:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by esby - uploaded by esby - nominated by esby -- Esby (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info 197 megapixels image - Avoid loading the original image directly in your browser -- Esby (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info 90 images enfused into 30 ones which were exposure fused from stacks with hugin into a seamless panorama. -- Esby (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Esby (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For sure this is impressive work but this is mainly from size point of view, and not only that matters. There's way too much exposures blending artifacts going on and this looks unnatural. - Benh (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if you agree in my comment on the image.. but if you can re-stitch this image and remove this error. I would like a little more sky at the top but this is minor problem because sky can easily cloned. Ggia (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI'll try that this evening,there is also some noises in the barrier. It's linked to what benh said actually. Not sure if this can be easily fixed. I am against adding more sky, because it would probably affect the panorama viewver. Esby (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't add the sky to the panorama viewer.. add it afterwards, cloning the sky.. it is easy.. Ggia (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Some stitching errors, visible along the guardrail, and blending problems as pointed out above. Sting (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now as well as the composition imho, the remaining errors on the guardrail are almost invisible, but I noticed now that there are several ghosts in the area framed. Sting (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Managed to fix the blending issue I could see. (I merged the two exposure stack of the bottom to get 20 images (10 top, 10 bottom) to blend in a panorama).Gonna upload a new version, I also changed the angle of cut, as it fits more logic to not cut the city in two part. Esby (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC) - Edit: new version is up; but the projection is wrong. Did not notice until I uploaded it to the new version. Should be cylindrical and not equirectangular... Esby (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unrealistic deformed picture.--Jebulon (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Do you mind sharing more your thought? do you plan to oppose all non-rectinear panorama that exists and are featured? Esby (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sting--shizhao (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Esby (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC) -- no time to work on this image for now, I'll check later. Esby (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Narikala fortress, Tbilisi, Georgia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2011 at 17:08:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gaeser - uploaded by Gaeser - nominated by Gaeser -- G eorge, 17:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose excellent composition, nice image.. but the quality is not enough for this image to be featured. There is a kind of error in the car down-right part of the image. Ggia (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the error, apparently a stitching problem, in the car in the parking lot (lower right). The lighting is soft and there may be a bit of camera motion blur. I wonder if a tripod was used. I think the composition, subject, point of view and exposure are good to superior. I wish it were sharper. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's, I see the problem with the car. I'll fix it. The tripod was used, but I still don't feel myself comfortable enugh using it :(...--G eorge, 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ~~per Ggia~~.--Snaevar (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing the resoning behind my vote to: The fortress looks flat and like it´s suffering from lack of sharpness.--Snaevar (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is in general terms very soft and flat. The composition is, however, very very good. If you could come up with a sharper image with better contrast, you have my vote definitively. --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So good composition and perfect colors, too bad its not a bit sharper. --Mile (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it, but the quality isn't good: to soft and unsharp. It's a great pity. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ggia--shizhao (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info This image was updated on the 19th of January, removing the car and the error Ggia mentioned in the process.--Snaevar (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parkinsonia parkinsoni 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2011 at 15:30:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though (being picky for a sec) I'da liked to've seen it rotated 90 or so degrees clockwise. =$ -- IdLoveOne (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info This is the natural orientation. Please compare with a swimming nautilus. --Llez (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The fossil could have been more precise, but it's nice. --Citron (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Citron.--Snaevar (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support and ten. --Jebulon (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:The Great Sphinx, Pyramids of Gizeh-1839) by David Roberts, RA.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2011 at 00:41:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by David Roberts - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Marmoulak -- Marmoulak (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Some yellow noise spots, see annonations. Care to remove those, so I can support this picture?--Snaevar (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cleared the yellow noise spots! -- Marmoulak (talk)
  - Support Thanks --Snaevar (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 14:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Picture with historical value, nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fleamarket trinkets.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2011 at 03:59:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose，缺少焦点--shizhao (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Cluttered and~~ unfortunate composition as some of the items are cut off.--Snaevar (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is Almost Always something cut out in photography, just look at the pictures on this page, cut off buildings, statues, landscapes, people, etc., etc.... photography is a partial view of reality. Clutter is almost always there in fleamarkets, and this is ordered clutter... anyway... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can agree on only one thing, that fleamarkets are cluttered. You know, that fleamarket table ends somewhere and I am only expecting you to have the items fetured, the "trinklets" of the fleamarket, uncut. Additionally when I look at a full resolution version of the image, the problem that Shizhao mentioned erlier about lack of focus is also there. That leaves me with the conseus that this picture is not good enough for FP.--Snaevar (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lack of focus? You can see the texture of the cloth! There may be some drop off in DOF, but there is focus in the important parts... The image has not been sharpened (this is often confused with lack of focus), so the final end user cann maniipulate image according to reproduction needs. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image of Bush: Commons:Derivative works, copyvio?--Miguel Bugallo 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fleamarket trinkets.jpg--Miguel Bugallo 21:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Copyvio? Are you sure or do you suspect it? Photo taken in a public street, a fleamarket, with lots of other items, watches included, with their name showing. Legitimate image of a social phenomena, where one photo of a very public person is shown, freedom of panorama. If anything, I would be more concerned about the copyright on the penguin! Don´t you have anything better to do? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must read the Convenio de Berna (in Spanish) and Commons:Derivative works. Its a copyvio: Speedy deletion for me. More information in your user talk page--Miguel Bugallo 01:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Miguel Bugallo, FPC is a place to place photographs or other visual media that anyone considers worthy of being featurable, regardless of what people at the individual level think. It is a process that has consensus and the community at the end decides as a group whether the image attains the status of FP or not. It is a democratic process, where education, relevancy, quality issues, etc., are considered. FPC is not a place to argue possible copyright violations, there is an appropiate place for that. By linking this vote to a deletion request based on your opinion you are harming the FPC process, introducing a bias, thus corrupting it. On top of this, you have canvassed for votes to support your argument for deletion, essentially engaging in meatpuppetry [[5]]. And since you have invited people to vote, I invite the community in general, not likely individuals who may vote my way, to visit the deletion request and vote according to the facts, keep or delete, and to inquire into the nature of your nomination. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not able to say this in English. (Spanish) No he invitado a nadie a votar (terjiversación de Tomascastelazo). He pedido opinión a un usuario (administrador) que me merece respeto. Lo he hecho porque en el caso de que no tuviese una opinión semejante a la mía, habría reconsiderado mi petición de que la imagen fuese borrada. Yo no he solicitado su voto ni he sugerido que votase, solamente le he pedido su opinión. Digo todo ésto con una única intención, la intención de dejar claro que ese usuario ha votado autónomamente, por propia decisión, y -lo más importante- su ética es irreprochable.--Miguel Bugallo 19:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation to English: I haven't invited anybody to vote (Tomascastelazo's biased opinion) I have asked opinion to a user (administrator) I respect. In the case she had an opposite opinion I would have reconsidered my request of deletion. Again, I haven't requested her vote nor suggested her to vote, I only asked for her opinion. My only intention is to clarify that this user (the admin) has voted of her own choice and, most importantly, her ethics in this instance, are irreproachable.--Miguel Bugallo 22:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am not a photographer so I can't comment on the technical aspects. As a reader, I do not see strong value in this being a FP. It does not teach me anything new, nor captivate my imagination (that compels me to read the article), nor make me grow an appreciation for something I already knew. Jon C (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Considering the circumnstances. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mala Paklenica - entrance.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2011 at 21:51:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explane briefly why you oppose, as a matter of consideration of the candidate. Thanks. -- MJJR (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I find the composition (and color, and lighting) very uninteresting. -Benh (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is ambiguous, framing looks aleatory. Maybe some crop could help. --Elekhh (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Seems to me being lifeless on the top half of the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like it. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It is a nice photo technically, but in my opinion is not outstanding enough to merit Featured status alongside its deserved Quality Image status. TFCforever (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Freudenberg-014.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2011 at 19:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Old town of Freudenberg, Germany. Latest version edited by Aristeas.

Info created by Bartiebert - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Bartiebert -- Danny (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danny (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate crop and the picture could be sharper. I think that another picture of the same subject would produce an FP, though.--Snaevar (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Umnik (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explane briefly why you oppose, as a matter of consideration of the candidate. Thanks. -- MJJR (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy with the sharpness and the quality and actually like something about the crop. It reminds me of a poster. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning towards support, but I am unsure about the sky-earth proportion. I think a slight crop at the top would help the composition. --Elekhh (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: Per Elekhh, a slight crop could make this photo a very easy FP selection. TFCforever (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I upload a new version under the same title while it is a QI? --Danny (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turtle golfina escobilla oaxaca mexico claudio giovenzana 2010.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2011 at 23:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Giove - uploaded by Giove - nominated by Giove -- Giove (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Giove (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Not yet fifty edits and account is only 5 days old. W.S. 08:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, this image does not meet the 2 Megapixel minium for an FP.--Snaevar (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to a new version of this photo I change my vote to Support--Snaevar (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it, but alas, too small. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Size criteria now met, but still, the quality is poor. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is large enough for a lot of applications, especially digital content. The quality of the image, despite its size, is good enough, aesthetically, photograpically and encyclopaedically. It is definitelly a much better photograph than a lot of the images that have passed as FP. It fits the screen nicely and even print applications can go up to half page with no problem. Most photographs never make it to that size anyway. I´d much rather have a good small photograph than a large mediocre one. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about the dark spot, on the top right of the image, and the fact that one of the limbs of the turtle are partially cut off at the bottom right. Just becouse this image is a sunset photo, and visually beutiful as such does not mean that it´s quality, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because it's beautiful, interesting and because I have a doubtfulness that getting such an image is an easy thing to do (kindly correct me if I'm wrong). EDIT: Thanks, High Fin. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is FP to me but way too downsampled. I have to oppose it on technical reasons. Would support a higher resolution version. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Violates the rules of FP --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support New 2.6 Mpx version worths FT to me --LucaG (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice illustration of turtles on the beach. --Elekhh (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still way too downsampled for a Canon EOS 7D. Just upping a slightly over the limits version for FP is gaming the system. W.S. 08:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think standards should be consistent, and not camera related. Also see no need to bite newbies.. --Elekhh (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the image is good.. if the user will upload a higher resolution probably some users will complain about the noise level.. high resolution images and noise levels is something that should be discussed.. otherwise users would prefer to down-sample there images. Ggia (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see only a beach with sand.--Claus (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That demonstrates how well the turtles are hiding ;) --Elekhh (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice aesthetic, and thanks for improving the resolution - more would be even better! --99of9 (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong supportThomas888b (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Beautiful! TFCforever (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dilma Rousseff - foto oficial 2011-01-09.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2011 at 02:38:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Dantadd - nominated by Kleiner
Support -- Kleiner (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Marmoulak (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Skin looks a bit oversharpened for my taste. On the other hand it is not a beauty contest, so can't decide. bamse (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes for me - it's good and usefull. --Danny (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Professional photo, done for marketing purposes. Good quality, but no wow. I'm not keen to see this kind of images of politicians as featured. --Lošmi (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't get it: Professional photo, done for marketing purposes. Why exactly should this be a bad thing? If originally it's been used for something not good, that's quite irrelevant for this nomination. Kleiner (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You took it out of context. It was only one part of my comment. --Lošmi (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lošmi; good picture of a (relatively) ordinary subject. Jon C (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose columns coming out of the head is a no-go for a professional photo. --AngMoKio (座谈) 23:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These are not mere columns: It's the easily recognized columns of Palácio da Alvorada, the official residence of Dilma Rousseff, and a symbol of Brasília's modern architecture, designed by Oscar Niemeyer. I consider the columns a very well-received detail in this photo, but it's just my POV. Nothing against who disagrees... Kleiner (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AngMoKio.--Snaevar (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - quite good actually. I think people should put politics aside when voting because we are choosing the best photo, not the best subject.--Avala (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extremely notable photograph, as it is the official portrait of a major head of state. No technical problems spoil it. Missionary (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I bet it could pass if not for those annoying columns behind her head. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: One of the best portrait photographs I've seen! TFCforever (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Miguel Bugallo 19:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For creating an official portrait of the President with such a horrible background, the photographer should be sentenced to death for high treason. :) Wolf (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ... Same problem for her predecessor !! --Jebulon (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background. Yann (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pont-Alexandre-III-et-Invalides.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2011 at 04:26:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dimitri Destugues - nominated by Claus
Support -- Claus (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, expecially at the columns to the right. Also, I´d like to point out the FP photo File:KeizersgrachtReguliersgrachtAmsterdam.jpg as a comparision, to show how a image like this should look like.--Snaevar (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, I'd say. Some kind of overexposure is inevitable for this kind of night images. For example, this featured image has similar overexposure on the right. --Lošmi (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This amount of overexposure is OK for such a picture. In fact, I consinder this photo superior to the Amsterdam FP in terms of composition and even atmospheric lighting. Good quality / sharpness. --Nikopol (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Lošmi and Nikopol -- MJJR (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mile (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just wish I'd post mine first :) But I don't think it's this good anyways... - Benh (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doesn't look badly overexposed to me. Steven Walling 01:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Beautiful. TFCforever (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Syr Darya River Floodplain, Kazakhstan, Central Asia.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2011 at 20:55:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by created by the ISS Expedition 25 crew - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Syr Darya River Floodplain is shown here as a tangle of twisting meanders and loops.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Lack of detail.--Snaevar (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 19:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Stunning! TFCforever (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent EV, good quality and detail. --Avenue (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colourful afghan truck.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2011 at 07:22:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by isafmedia on Flickr - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by Zaccarias -- Zaccarias (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral because I am not an expert in photography. In my opinion the subject is very interesting. Quality seems to be good as far as I can say. -- Zaccarias (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks FP to me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dust spots, tigth crop. --Mile (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dust spots above the windscreen of the car, and overexposure at the left side.--Snaevar (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Mile and the tent is disturbing at the right. --Bgag (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many spots, but they can be removed --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request I guess so. But I never did that before and I wanna spare you guys from probably failed first tryouts. I guess this page is not the right place for first practice. Since the photographer is not involved in Commons, he also can't do this job. Can somebody else help? --Zaccarias (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support dust spots can be removed easily.. but I like the composition. Ggia (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting object. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A stunning photograph. TFCforever (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others above--Miguel Bugallo 23:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2011 at 12:39:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by PetarM -- Mile (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus), commonly known as Rečni galeb ("river gull") in Slovenian, in flight over river Ljubljanica, Slovenia. Image cropped at original size (no downsizing).
Support -- Mile (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The wing is blocking too much of its body. Sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Whale--shizhao (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not Chroicocephalus ridibundus. Look at the tail. W.S. 08:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)That's what you have specialists for!!. W.S. 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I did check, what's with it ? Oters dont live in rivers, as i read. Any suggestion which sort is it if not ridibundus ? --Mile (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a gull specialist, but the tail of your bird has a black border while the others in the category have not. W.S. 14:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been asked to comment here. It is Chroicocephalus ridibundus; age first-winter immature (compare e.g. here); only adults have an all-white tail. - MPF (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I agree with The High Fin Sperm Whale. TFCforever (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One of the bird´s wing that is leaning towards the sea is lacking sharpness in comparision with the bird´s body. --Snaevar (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eilean Donan Castle, Scotland - Jan 2011.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2011 at 11:36:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elekhh (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another Diliff masterpiece. You even managed to arrange the clouds nicely David! --99of9 (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The bridge and castle seem overexposed to me. But since I can agree on that this picture is good, I´ll give it a neutral vote.--Snaevar (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I don't like the artifacts --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian ɸ 18:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kadellar (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 21:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Maredentro
- As a user of less than 50 edits and with an account age less than 10 days, you don´t have the right to vote.--Snaevar (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is good. W.S. 08:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously. Nice sky, lighting, composition and reflection on water.. all contribute to the nice mood - Benh (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Schnobby (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Brilliant! TFCforever (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's with the water? Is it shallow? Is it a bog or some kind of wetland? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just wow! --Citron (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scene like from a hollywood movie with Sean Connery :-) Really nice one. --Aktron (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Korostavnik.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2011 at 20:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Knautia arvensis, commonly known as Field Scabious, is a species in the genus Knautia

Info created by Sidik iz PTU - uploaded by Sidik iz PTU - nominated by Sidik iz PTU -- Sidik iz PTU (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sidik iz PTU (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good level of detail. I can even see a small bug on the flower to the right.--Snaevar (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed good detail, but the composition is not featured and the bright flowers in the background are distracting. You could try to improve this by cropping, but if you want to take it all out, then maybe the crop would become too tight. --Nikopol (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have thousands of similar shots, and this one doesn't stand out among others. Unaesthetic background. - Benh (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Beautiful. TFCforever (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, poster like. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. Yann (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Benh. W.S. 08:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Cropped, as Nikopol described erlier.--Snaevar (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have thousands of similar shots, and this one doesn't stand out among others. Unaesthetic background. - Benh (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring composition.--Claus (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. Yann (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Benh. W.S. 08:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sagaie-PRE.2010.0.1.4-IMG 1799.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2011 at 13:34:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Assegai with double beveled base. Two views of the same object.

Stage: Magdalenian Locality: Tursac, Dordogne, France ; site of La Madelaine 21.7 x 1.8 x 1.5 cm, 21.3 g Collection Edouard & Louis Lartet
Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain -- Rama (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality picture for sure and certainly some EV but this kind of shot can be repeated to any extent (well as long as you find the subjects) and require no specific skill IMO. I oppose. FP has to be special and magic a little. - Benh (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Benh if you find that images of objects should not be part of FPC you can start a discussion in the talk page.. many users upload images like that.. and they repeating nominate similar to these shots .. Ggia (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The left part of the object lacks really sharpness. Sting (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sting.--Snaevar (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: A good Quality Image, but it really lacks the outstanding quality of Featured Pictures. TFCforever (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wells Cathedral, Wells, Somerset.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2011 at 19:09:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by seier+seier - uploaded by Avala - nominated by Avala -- Avala (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support great quality and sharpness -- Avala (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shizhao, it is not enough to vote against, you must also argue.--Citron (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice! --Citron (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good but boring composition/shot. I miss something to see this reaching FP status. - Benh (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought the picture represented the scale and solidness of the subject well. Jon C (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White spots and the supporting column on the right is cut off, see annonations. Also, I agree with Benh on this one.--Snaevar (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but... per Benh.--Jebulon (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's good enough to be an FP. -- Marmoulak (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Good pic, but it has to be either a different perspective or at least completely horizontal. I'll change my vote to support if tilt is adjusted. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no tilt, it's just a hill. If you rotate the photo to falsely turn the hill into flat terrain, then the cathedral will be tilted like it's not right now.--Avala (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak support Yes, sorry, you're right. I checked with the ruler and there's indeed only a very small tilt. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The sharpness and contrast are excellent. TFCforever (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Benh. W.S. 08:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skolebilder 012.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 17:28:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Beard in a 25-year old male.

Info created by User:JustEase - uploaded by User:JustEase - nominated by User:JustEase -- JustEase (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- JustEase (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Account too young -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of terrible image quality and no apparent value for the project -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2011 (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:Florence - Cosme de Médicis.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2011 at 08:09:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Eusebius. -- Eusebius (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose，雕像不完整--shizhao (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... It's a choice (which one can disagree with), not a mistake (because showing the full statue doesn't make the picture a better illustration of the character). --Eusebius (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Yes, the stature is cut off, but it does depict Cosimo de' Medici well. The steep upward camera angle and uninteresting sky prevents me from supporting it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is particularly and extraordinary sharp. I like the light very much, because it is very "clear", but without overexposures. The blue sky in background is nice as a "natural" masking, and make the statue nicer too IMO. Info Il y a une expo à Paris sur les Medicis en ce moment, à voir absolument. Un superbe buste en bronze du même Côme y est visible. Musée Maillol, prolongée jusqu'à la mi-février.--Jebulon (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shadow of the horse head is somewhat cut off, but whatever.--Snaevar (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It looks great. TFCforever (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I don't like the unnecessary extra space on the right. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong compo: the horse is walking out of the frame. W.S. 15:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found it more important to have the main character looking in the direction of the space in the frame than to have his horse walking towards it. --Eusebius (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is supposed to be looking to infty, horizon,... doesn;t make sense to be looking inside the frame. The beast, on the other hand... Downsampledbokeh (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the direction of the look. Would you include the ground in the picture because the horse is looking at it, while putting the head of the main character in a corner because he's looking towards the horizon? I don't mind criticism, but honestly, suggesting that the look of the horse should be favoured over the look of the subject in the composition sounds a bit stupid. --Eusebius (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:20101231 Yazd Iran panorama from Amir Chakhmaq Complex.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2011 at 00:02:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting, and bad composition. - Benh (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question bad composition in what sense? bad lighting? it is the light of the sunset.. Ggia (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image cut in the middle = boring composition, and yes sunset, but still a bit dull. I think there are many other much better panoramas out there, but this is just my opinion. - Benh (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info I think the image has good atmosphere because of the light of the sunset.. and the cut in the middle is not so bad because it is balanced with the mountain and the city. Try to crop it in another way if you think that a better crop exists. The image is high quality, a lot of details.. and you see a lot of Badgirs giving high EV. And by the way in my opinion about this city, is that is one is one of the most beautiful cities I have visited in Iran. Ggia (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The place is probably nice, and so may be the atmosphere. Like you, I always try to catch sunrises or sunsets when I can to get better moods. But still it's really a bit short on execution (by the way, I think the horizon isn't straight). I won't crop it more since there's no more room left for that. If possible, I would take it from higher point of view and frame it to add more room on the bottom side of the image. As for the EV issue, this isn't the right place (Have you tried on english Wiki ?). - Benh (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I keep coming back to your photo. I agree to your arguments, the sunrise is nice and you captured a lot of badgirs, good quality. You also tried to capture Yazd´s symbiosys of city, desert and mountains. However, the pattern of streets and cluttered buildings does not work very well for the imagages composition. Then there is the sky cutting the image in two, which is further handicapping the composition, and the mountains are barely visible because of the haze. I love Yazd (did you try Kashan? If you still can, go there as well) and I really like your picture, but Im afraid aesthetically, it does not quite work well enough as a whole to be among the best panos on commons. --Nikopol (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was in Kashan.. by I liked most Yazd.. more big old city more nice.. I have also more panoramas from Yazd but I have to stitch them first.. Ggia (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Benh.--Jebulon (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support: A nice image. TFCforever (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Večka kula (Starigrad) in the evening.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2011 at 20:08:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pudelek, edit by Jebulon, nominated by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, see notes--shizhao (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see. This is moon, tree and grass --Pudelek (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see what makes this shot valuable. - Benh (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not good enough.--Claus (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support LeavXC (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose bad lighting, not sharp enough and lacking composition. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
bad lighting - this is EVENING... --Pudelek (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Definitely a Quality Image, but not outstanding enough to be a Featured Picture, in my opinion. TFCforever (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I like it enough for a Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rough-skinned newt.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2011 at 03:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jsayre64 - uploaded by Jsayre64 - nominated by Jsayre64 -- Jsayre64 (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jsayre64 (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Motion blur, grain and noise, and blown highlights. I shame; I love rough-skinned newts. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The High Fin Sperm Whale --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per THFSW.--Snaevar (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I also agree with The High Fin Sperm Wale. TFCforever (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per The--shizhao (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bufonaria perelegans 2010 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2011 at 11:48:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Near-elegant Frog Shell Bufonaria perelegans. This small yellowy-brown seashell has white edges and white thorns.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral could be sharper; blurriness followed by a brownish dot at the right side of the right shell near the opening (aperture). Overall quality is good, though.--Snaevar (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp enough to me: 5,200 × 3,600 pixels--Miguel Bugallo 23:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify, I am talking about sharpness within the annonated area marked above on the picture, but not in general.--Snaevar (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have not tried to misinterpret your words--Miguel Bugallo 19:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Definitively. --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose це виглядає вниз головою. W.S. 07:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, a seashell very conditionally has "top" and "bottom". A gastropoda mollusk creeps on surfaces with very different angles. This picture shows dorsal and ventral view, and any angle of view for both part of picture will be correct.

Yes, there is a historical tradition only (by Ernst Haeckel and other wildlife illustrators) to draw apex at top, however it isn't dogma. At this historical illustration author Ernst Haeckel breaks self tradition (see shells at left and at right).

Also exist other historical tradition by other illustrators (however not so popular), to draw apex at bottom. For example: this picture has been made 1742. Personally I like such variant. However any angle of view is correct for a seashell, for example this and this with ~30° rotation. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was wrong, I just prefer the other way for an FP. It is more a matter of consistency. Look at most of the other images on commons. Flipping will gain my support. W.S. 14:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Stunning! TFCforever (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely, and I love the tilt. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Crotalus-basiliscus-basiliskenklapperschlange.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2011 at 17:51:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by H. Krisp - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition. -- Citron (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, amazing! --Phyrexian ɸ 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow too! - Benh (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per supporters above. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per thfsWhale. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 21:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely. --Nikopol (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 02:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Avenue (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Warum ist es nicht grün? W.S. 14:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kewl -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Incredible! TFCforever (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- Ra'ike T C 16:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Aktron (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Until identity is proven. W.S. 08:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like this site.. --Citron (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I give you the benefit of the doubt. W.S. 10:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Écorché cavalier Fragonard Alfort 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2011 at 16:41:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the picture of a detail of a very rare anatomic piece of the 18th century. It shows a mummified écorché of a horse and his rider, used for anatomical research, on display at the museum of the National Veterinarian High School in Maisons-Alfort, near Paris. Made by french anatomist Honoré Fragonard ca. 1770. The mummification technics is still partially unknown. Museum picture: through a glass, neither tripod nor flash was used.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting, looks a bit like Plastination. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, but not scary, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cavalryman of horror --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautifully horrific—and didactic. Now inserted in articles. --Myrabella (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary (and creepy!) work. Great job. --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose J'aimerai voir le reste de la combinaison. W.S. 07:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is this vote valid (50 edits) ? --Jebulon (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This picture is indeed a "detail". It is a museum picture, and it is impossible to take a good enough one of the whole composition, because of the lack of distance, the glass reflections, or the back light, or the contre-jour... It was for me the only way to show this "cavalier", sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment W.S has 96 edits (currently), and his first edit is from december 21st, 2010. So yes, his vote is valid.--Snaevar (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment It is hoped that soon we will show its first photograph :)--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Stunning! TFCforever (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Flickr - Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife - 9837 pacific tree frog swingle odfw.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2011 at 00:20:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife on Flickr - uploaded by Boing-boing or Zil - nominated by IdLoveOne (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd say, blown highlights. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many gray areas, poor lighting. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again, one of my favourite amphibians, but blown highlights, noise, and low sharpness. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low DOF and sharpness. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Yeah agreed, I noticed those things too late. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Booby chick.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2011 at 18:55:04

Info (Original nomination)
Delist Below current size minimum. -- Snowmanradio (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist ACK --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The main subject is also too close to the edge of the frame --99of9 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist nice bird, but too small photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist alas... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others. --Cayambe (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I agree with Alvesgaspar's ideas about preserving our FPC heritage; however, this really is too small. Per George Chernilevsky. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others.. nice bird by the way! Ggia (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonius Kloster BW 15.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2011 at 17:46:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info A cave church at St. Anthonys monastry, Egypt
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose，影子破坏构图--shizhao (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 谢谢 -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadows are distracting. -- Marmoulak (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The shadow ist part of the story: the shadow of the cross points towards the church of resurection. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I really like the shadows: they add to the image, in my opinion. TFCforever (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting composition to me. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the two above --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chromatic aberrations (see notes). A bit underexposed. I like the shadows--Miguel Bugallo 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Underexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moers, 2010-12 CN-II, Hanns-Dieter-Hüsch-Bildungszentrum.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2011 at 19:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Carschten. Entrance perspective of the new Hanns-Dieter-Hüsch-Bildungszentrum (built in 2010) in Moers, Germany, at a winter day near sunset. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - THere are plenty of such pictures on commons; FP shoud be unique in some way. --Aktron (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Aktron--shizhao (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rote Flüh von Haldensee.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2011 at 19:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. The Rote Flüh with some other mountains, seen over the Haldensee that is dipped in ground fog. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really great picture, although MetaData would be nice. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive scene --Schnobby (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 22:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really excellent! -- MJJR (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Taupe MHNT.OST.1997.45.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2011 at 16:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the tail is a bit blurry, but that is a small price to pay, really.--Snaevar (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Who knew a mole skeleton looked so freaky? Steven Walling 22:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Answer to both questions above. This method of naturalization, wants to preserve, dander and bone connection. It is based on stopping the cleaning at some point. It was practiced until the mid-twentieth century. Today we do not know very well done and the bones are perfectly clean, without the dander and ... we must go with the skeleton of wire. The photographic challenge, it is that this specimen is sealed in a plastic box which caused me problems with reflections of light. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 22:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon C (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Spooky. Taxocat (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a user of an account aged less than 10 days you don´t have the right to vote. Try again on the 1st of February.--Snaevar (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks but no thanks. As a user with more votes than you, I decline to participate in this elitist contest. I 'll stick to my usual business. One feels rather unwelcome here. --Taxocat (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Wasserturm Luzern LCD.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2011 at 20:04:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Murdockcrc - uploaded by Murdockcrc - nominated by Murdockcrc -- Murdockcrc (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info View of Wasserturm and Kapellbrücke, both iconic symbols of the city of Lucerne, Switzerland. Mount Rigi can be seen in the background.
Support -- Murdockcrc (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Snaevar (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my vote to Oppose Unsharp.--Snaevar (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is not very interesting and the composition is not spectacular. There is much better on Category:Kapellbrücke. FP wants the best Commons can offer. This is good but not "the best". W.S. 08:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi. I just wanted to point out to the fact that this is a FP nomination and not Value Image. The purpose is not to compare images of the same subject, but to decide if the picture meet the FP guidelines. --Murdockcrc (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wetenschatje--shizhao (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted. ---donald- (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Great technically (and in my opinion a Quality Image), but not outstanding enough to be a Featured Picture. TFCforever (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition is very good, but the image is unsharp, tilted and I'm not sure about the lighting (per above) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No specialities for a featured pic......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trompette piccolo - pavillon.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 10:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Eusebius --Eusebius (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a very nice and neat picture and technically correct, but as a FP I'd rather prefer a more general view (with slightly better DOF) and no kitchen (? :) ) reflections. Masur (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely understand. Incidentally, if someone has advice on how to better control these reflexions... Shooting varnished brass objects is a nightmare. --Eusebius (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When we were shooting some lab. glassware (images soon to be uploaded - plenty of them) we used one of these "shadowless tables" (not sure whether the name is right, but hope you got an idea) with additional "screens" on sides (black carton board) to prevent reflections of the room in the object and to nicely enhance contours visibility. Masur (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some ideas for background screens, but they need space... I'm not sure what a shadowless table is, but if it is based on light polarization, it cannot help for metal reflection, if I remember correctly my optic lectures. Thank you anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[6] - and you can place lights around it, and they gonna be nicely dispersed. Masur (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that with a trumpet bell, you need to have screens everywhere. Here the trumpet is in a box with only one side open, and it's still not enough. I'll work on it... but I don't have this instrument anymore, unfortunately. --Eusebius (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--Eusebius (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xenophora pallidula 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2011 at 19:44:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A shell collector photographed by a shell collector. Not only humans collect shells!

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Very interesting --91.13.253.246 09:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Please log in to vote.--Jebulon (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support More than interesting ! Questions are : "How" and "Why" does this shell collect shells... Fascinating ! --Jebulon (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, but a file too heavy is really necessary? --Citron (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technology changes very quickly, the display problem will be solved soon. This type of image can be cut to take only certain views without quality loss. It's a big job --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand these support votes. The colors are off and the highlights are blown. W.S. 08:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean by "the colours are off"? It's a pure white, translucent shell with attached white shells. Which colours do do you expect in this case, where should they come from? I'd be glad if you would visit me to check the colours of the original and to compare them with the photo. --Llez (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the color is poor (flash light?) and the highlights are blown. Try a different way of lighting your subject. I'm sure you can do better. (examples: [7], [8], [9], and [10]). W.S. 14:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review voting instructions: Unhelpful reasons for opposing include: "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you mean: "Only give supporting votes as we don't like criticism here"? Before biting all my opposes, read the comments and note that Llez has done better in the past so with his proven track record he knows he can. W.S. 08:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can make your point without attacking other users. If you cannot or will not follow explicit instructions for reviewing the images nominated here, please do not participate. Your comments help to set the tone for this discussion. Please try to set a positive example. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't attack me, Walter, all my opposes are valid, sound and not ad hominem. Do you really want to oppress all opposition? W.S. 06:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You used the words, "I'm sure you can do better" above. I reminded you that COM:FPC voting instructions explicitly say "Unhelpful reasons for opposing include: 'You can do better' and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image". Then you repeated your criticism of the author/nominator using different words. You may oppose an image and the criteria include many valid reasons for doing so. But, "I'm sure you can do better" is not one. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you all for this interesting discussion, but lets come back to the colours. I said, that the shell is translucent. Most of the pictures cited above are made with white background or at least with a bright background. No wonder, if the shell then seems to be pure white or creamy. I photographed my shell with a black background, and this black is shining through the thin, translucent parts of the shell. So one can demonstrate, how thin the shell is in reality. Only thickened, not translucent parts of the shell are pure white. I really tried to do my best, to show the fragility of the shell.

--Llez (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Even that being as it is (I'd call it an unfortunate choice of background in this case), it doesn't account for the blown highlights. And considering the you know you can do better-remark: consider it as a compliment for your previous FP's. It was of course not an attack as Mr. Siegmund would love to see it. W.S. 12:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Nicely made but I agree that some highlights are blown. Sting (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Striking and technically proficient. TFCforever (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting subject, makes me want to learn more. Jon C (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 08:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Diskokulan i lagunen (cropped).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 01:27:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown, photographed and uploaded by Pieter Kuiper (original) - edited and nominated by IdLoveOne (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral bad position of the "diskokulen" (disco ball), per Rule of thirds. On a different note, I do like that this nomination is swedish. --Snaevar (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rule-of-thirds. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lepidochelys olivacea igerian.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 01:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Theklan - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Theklan (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this just isn't good enough for a FP. The top of the shell is blown, and the bottom is too dark. This is what I consider good turtle photography. I know it was almost impossible to get a picture like that here though, since the water is so murky. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Maredentro Amazing!
- As a user of less than 50 edits you don´t have the right to vote.--Snaevar (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per HFSW. Jon C (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amazing picture, but not enough quality for FP... --Phyrexian ɸ 18:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Decent, given the situations. I belive that this picture could be restored to remove those tiny colored noise in the water, but that´s about it.--Snaevar (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lindenstumpf, Panorama, 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 08:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Natalie Portman September 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2011 at 02:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John Steven Fernandez at Flickr - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO cropping it at the right side would make it even better. -- Marmoulak (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent detail, great lighting, good pose. The background is not wonderful, but overall I'm impressed. --99of9 (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree with the cropping at the right though, as it would center Portman´s face, witch is not the ideal compostion, in relevance to the Rule of thirds.--Snaevar (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dark in dark, ugly background, face looks unnatural grey, the lots of cutted off parts are very poor. I can see really nothing which should be feaured here! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really unfortunate crop. Steven Walling 17:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I completely agree with 99of9. TFCforever (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Face looks unnatural grey, wrong white balance. ---donald- (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing educational or of enduring interest about the picture; how is this different from any other possible ones of Ms Portman found in magazines? Jon C (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- License? Downsampledbokeh (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Knife blade-late neolithic-PRE.2009.0.189.2.IMG 2049.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2011 at 13:56:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Knife blade

Found in Leugny les goujons, Vienne, Poitou-Charentes Late Neolithic 15.5 x 6.0 x 1.9 cm, 177.1 g Collection Meillet Muséum de Toulouse, MHNT.PRE.2009.0.189.2
created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain -- Rama (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per my below comment - Benh (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[][reply]
Oppose: Great technically, which makes a good Quality Image, but not a Featured Picture in my opinion. TFCforever (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such high quality, I can't help but think this is support-able. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The edges of "the knife blade" seem iffy to me, and the shadow of the top half of the upper knife blade is too dark IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silver Gulls.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2011 at 12:09:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by User:99of9 - 99of9 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. -- 99of9 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Maredentro
- As a user of less than 50 edits and with an account age less then 10 days, you don´t have the right to vote.--Snaevar (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a nice topic, but the quality is a bit mediocre for a featured picture. Almost none of the legs (and there are many) show much detail. W.S. 07:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Nice image. TFCforever (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose about half of the segulls are blurry and lacking detail. IMO the only thing OK about this picture is the railing they are standing on.--Snaevar (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral It's interesting, but I don't like how the camera seems to be far-sighted. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- mine! Downsampledbokeh (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicholas Church Moscow Saburovo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2011 at 11:24:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by A.Savin - uploaded by A.Savin - nominated by A.Savin
Support A.S. 11:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Something's uneasy about the composition. Maybe the bottom crop is too tight. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Beautiful contrast. TFCforever (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trees at the edge to the left and right give an unfortunate compostion. Another but an minor issue are the bells in the tower are slightly blown.--Snaevar (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors and exposition did not convince me. What about a different temperature and a bit longer time? --Aktron (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like THIS maybe? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Snaevar--shizhao (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the white balanced version more, but I like this photo. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama nebuloso a Bolzano.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2011 at 11:04:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would like a english description of this picture, as I don´t understand Italian.--Snaevar (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You were right, sorry--Llorenzi (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Incredible: I love the transmission towers in the background! TFCforever (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting composition. Ggia (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking illustrative value. As a fog picture, it´s a bit overwhelming, and as a Bolanzo landscape picture, there is not much to see.--Snaevar (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pogona vitticeps close-up 2009 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 14:40:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Central bearded dragon (Pogona vitticeps)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tail is cut. W.S. 15:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, but like W.S. I wonder why the tail is cut.--Snaevar (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tail is very long and just not interesting (without any thorns or drawing figures) --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Wetenschatje. I don't know how interesting the tail is, but it ruins the composition to have it cut off like that. Do you have any more without a cut off tail? Apart from that, it's an excellent photo. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 07:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - interesting; would likely support if not for the unfortunate crop of the tail. Jonathunder (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: looks incomplete without end of tail. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree about the crop of the tail. TFCforever (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Thanks to all for feedback. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pumiforme.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 21:45:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A very fine example of a bicolor cat. The image does a very good job of illustrating its subject. It has been used on several Wikipedias to illustrate articles on bicolored cat fur and cats in general. It has a gentle background which emphasises the contrast between the cat's black and white parts.

Info created by Leptictidium - uploaded by Leptictidium - nominated by Leptictidium -- Leptictidium (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image does a very good job of illustrating its subject. It has been used on several Wikipedias to illustrate articles on bicolored cat fur and cats in general. It has a gentle background which emphasises the contrast between the cat's black and white parts.-- Leptictidium (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely not of exceptionnal enough quality for such an ubiquitous subject matter. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness overall, along with chromatic aberration and noise in the cat´s fur.--Snaevar (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low sharpness. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Aktron (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Maurilbert: it might be a good Valued Image, though. TFCforever (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fennec Fox @ Africa Alive, Lowestoft 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2011 at 04:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tim Parkinson on Flickr - uploaded by Vrlpep 12552 - nominated by IdLoveOne (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: Beautiful photograph, but it might benefit from a tighter crop. TFCforever (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not featured-quality composition. Steven Walling 19:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not featured picture quality, and needs a tighter crop. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To above about crop: I'll see what I can do, but those shadows worry me when it comes to cropping as they might get in the way.. I don't really mind the composition as it, but we'll see.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Composition is as I would expect (though the fox would be in a better position a little bit more to the left), and I find the shadow on the top left a little distracting.--Snaevar (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info Because of the stones and the shadows I thought this was the best way to go to get rid of them so there wouldn't be an annoying little cut off piece of stone or shadow here or there. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still not high enough quality, and the oval crop looks very strange. Sorry, but this picture just won't cut the bananas on FPC, no matter what is done to it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO the image and lighting itself is pretty good and sharp. *I wonder if I should have used a transparent background instead of black... * I don't think the oval shape is any stranger than all the many FPs we have with total and obviously digitized white and black backgrounds, and I think this shape really does draw the eye to the fox. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now you just need to convert to BW and add some scratches and will look really nostalgic :) --ELEKHH^T 23:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this meant as a joke? W.S. 08:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, newbie, constructive criticism only please. Nothing else is welcome on Commons. You can tilt your head upward slightly to read the practical reasons I made this choice in edit. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO the stones where not a problem to begin with, and I like the original better.--Snaevar (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- What about some pretty flowers decorating the frame? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the composition. The black background is disturbing--Miguel Bugallo 20:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to see Commons being so closed-minded. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paris - Eiffelturm - frontal vom Marsfeld.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2011 at 06:53:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Taxiarchos228 - uploaded by Taxiarchos228 - nominated by -- 62.193.236.96 06:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ IMO the eiffel tower looks flat, due to frontal perspective of the image. I would support a picture taken from an 45 degree angle, though.--Snaevar (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Support Good level of detail... On a slightly different remark, I can´t see why this picture is being judged as an Valued Picture candidate.--Snaevar (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes my vote is biased, and yes, the resolution is higher than the current FP's (names of scientists can be read much more easily, but they were also repainted) but I still prefer the colors from my picture, and there's that unfortunate big net on the left part. I wouldn't have supported my own pic anyways as this is a very trivial shot. - Benh (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Nice technically, which makes it a deserving Quality Image, but it is not outstanding enough to be a Featured Picture in my opinion. TFCforever (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As TFCforever. --Aktron (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking at full view I liked it more than I thought I would. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- We don't need two identical FP of the same subject and the existing one is better. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (I like this one better.) -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for me this is very good photo, enough for FP --Pudelek (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not as good as existing FP, per Benh and Alvesgaspar. --Avenue (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Monte Vulture visto da Monteverde.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2011 at 22:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Maredentro - uploaded by Maredentro -- 93.146.85.53 22:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 93.146.85.53 22:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only votes from registered users are counted.--Snaevar (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors, but too noisy. --Nikopol (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ If you open high resolution image, it won't appear you noisy! -- Maredentro
Support: The colors are fantastic. TFCforever (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love these colors :-) --Aktron (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Me too (though to nitpick the bg's a little..) -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maredentro, please refrain from reverting the cancelation of your vote. As a user with less than 50 edits, you do not have the right to vote (see FP Rules). --Nikopol (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. but I don't find outstanding in the composition, high EV or something to support this image. Ggia (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ggia. I don't see the point in the chosen composition. Also quite noisy (although downsampled, unless I'm mistaken). --Eusebius (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to be lacking depth and sharpness in the background.--Snaevar (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info To Snaevar: It calls "aerial perspective"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maredentro (talk • contribs)
- Comment Ok, Got it, thanks.--Snaevar (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, unsharp and ack. Snaevar. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Château de Himeji02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2011 at 21:06:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Bgag - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geo coordinates are somewhat off and currently point to Himeji City Office instead of the camera location. bamse (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have corrected the geolocation. --Bgag (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A stunning photograph! TFCforever (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to fulfill every criteria needed for an FP, though it doesn´t amaze me.--Snaevar (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can be a bit dark --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the quality (pixelated, grainy) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Danny (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but unsharp and grainy in major portions at full size. Not quite featured quality. Maybe VI or QI? Steven Walling 22:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Steven Walling--shizhao (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAlanscottwalker (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nizwa-Citrons séchés.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 19:24:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Ji-Elle - nominated by IdLoveOne (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~, bad quality. I saw much better candidates then this one. 21:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Log in to vote, please. And explain how the quality is bad. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The white balance seems a long way off to me (too blue). Also the composition doesn't catch me. I haven't looked at 100%, because both of these problems show up in thumbnail. --99of9 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do look at the full-view, I think the quality and depth of field is quite good. Also, I can make a white-balanced alternative easily, but I think the lighting is a little less perfect then. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Multible issues. The fabric in the top left corner is distracting. Given the white spots, pale blue color, cracks on some of those dried lemons and the insides are not so jummy, I would expect that those are past their last expiration date.--Snaevar (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They're dried, spices essentially - nonperishable because they've been preserved. Also I don't see how the eye could be drawn to that fabric when there's a hundred lemons in front of you. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure those are dried lemons (preserved and so on), but it does not explain the difference between this nominated picture and File:Dry Lemon Black.JPG, as none of the criteria I mentioned erlier does apply with the latter photo.--Snaevar (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm no expert on it, but File:Dry lemon yellow.JPG seems to suggest that dried lemons can come in different colors. This one looks similar to the nominated image. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad white balance, bad composition. --Aktron (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice quality, but not outstanding enough to be a Featured Picture, in my opinion. It could certainly go for a Quality Image nomination, though. TFCforever (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Well, quality-wise I still think it at least deserved a nomination (even if they're ugly lol). -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Velebitski kanal - view from Starigrad.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2011 at 12:07:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special for me. A panorama view would be much better. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not "special enough" for FP in my opinion. --Eusebius (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO more or less lifeless.--Snaevar (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp and Eusebius. TFCforever (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -_Pudelek (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karl-Theodor Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2011 at 23:05:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by PETER WEIS TALK 23:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Heed the personality rights: Personality rights warning and the OTRS-Permission by Karl-Theodor Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg. See for example File:Adi Holzer by Sabine von der Decken 2010 (No. 1).jpg --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- -- More or less on-topic... Please help me out. This gentleman is a well-known politician; this picture, according to the description, was taken on the occasion of a more or less public event (a speech at a congres center, with probably several hundred people attending). What is exactly the relation betweenpersonality rights and pictures taken of this sort of "public people" in this sort of circumstances? As to his necktie: a gentleman of this lineage should know how to tie a necktie cirrectly. No points awarded here. MartinD (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Nice technically, but more of a Quality Image than a Featured Picture in my opinion. TFCforever (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very good portrait, and that even in public domain! Good quality, composition seems okay to me, no disturbing background. One of the best pictures of Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg that we have! Clearly FP to me, and especially because of the necktie :-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. French caption added.--Jebulon (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the necktie ;-) Ggia (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Nice bokeh and not downsampled. Let me see if I know some other words. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but composition is such-such - torso could be wider (arms). --Mile (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent. -- Felix König ✉ 17:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see nothing noteworthy or educational about the subject. Jon C (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Jon C. W.S. 06:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nothing educational nor noteworthy ? This man is the federal minister of defense of Germany...--Jebulon (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Probably no one knows (or cares about) who was the minister of defense in 1991, and posterity will judge likewise this fine gentleman. It's within the powers of the 20 most influential person in each of the G20 to commission a technically great picture; do we want all of them to be featured picture? This is a quality picture, not a FP. Jon C (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm probably wrong. Let's be politically correct, and support only ethnic portraits, as usual.--Jebulon (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mile.--Snaevar (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for quality and important subject, despite composition. --Avenue (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support--Miguel Bugallo 19:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks to those supporting, jebulon for providing the french caption and those stating a constructive critique. a blasé side glance to whom it may concern. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castell dels Tres Dragons 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2011 at 22:11:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Certainly a Quality Image, but not outstanding enough to be a Featured Picture, in my opinion. TFCforever (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks really flat, and a bit grainy. Another perspective would definatly help.--Snaevar (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good photo of a somewhat uninteresting, although likely historically significant to local culture, subject. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:55, 23 January (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orange and cross section.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2011 at 21:09:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Brilliant. TFCforever (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I the only one not to like the background ? IMHO it should be consistently white, not with bluish or pinkish panels... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A simple shot like this one can´t really go wrong.--Snaevar (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 19:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose image made of three singles frames, which just had 0,9 MP each time. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deliberately restrictive license means it's not as valuable in my books. Also small size. --99of9 (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a nice picture :-) --Aktron (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice. Jonathunder (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small. W.S. 08:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon C (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is great, the shadows are good an important. But at the top there are visible grey areas, also at the very bottom. Please correct. ---donald- (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clear vertical stitch lines are present in the image. --JovianEye (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Carschten and Wetenschatje. Can be re-shot.--Jebulon (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Furthermore, no need of three pictures, IMO. The second and the third are sufficient (and should make a better composition...)--Jebulon (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon and others. --Avenue (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bunnyfrosch (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Carschten and Wetenschatje--Miguel Bugallo 07:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kaʁstn -- Marmoulak (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sun Rays.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2011 at 15:28:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pamporoff - uploaded by Pamporoff - nominated by Tourbillon -- - Tourbillon 15:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 15:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- - Tourbillon 15:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 15:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disorted trees, and a classic example of overexposure, plus those human faces are lacking sharpness. --Snaevar (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Snaevar. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Snaevar, too. TFCforever (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ficheiro-Araña alimentándose de Auchenorrhyncha. Bastavales, Brión, 090905.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2011 at 22:31:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo 22:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miguel Bugallo 22:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. A bit creepy indeed, but that is just a sign how good the picture really is.--Snaevar (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done photo in action --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Eusebius (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow, very good (even if a better setting would be even better) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon C (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 04:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! TFCforever (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alps@swizz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 06:45:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Alps mountain ranges from Jungfrau.. in Swizz..

Info created by Captain - uploaded by Captain - nominated by Captain -- ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view really, but severely overexposed (and probably a bit too cold). --Eusebius (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed areas are too large, mainly at the right side. Chromatic aberration (violet fringe at the left side, green fringe at the right side) is noticeable, but I'm not sure if this is really an issue. Regards, --Cayambe (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed per Eusebius and Captain.--Snaevar (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree about it being overexposed. TFCforever (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cyttaria.fruit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2011 at 11:49:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info : Fruit of fungis Cyttaria hariotii created & uploaded by Butterfly voyages - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The fruit is centered, but should be eather on the slight-left or right side in order to get featured compostion. Also, the bottom of the fruit is blurry.--Snaevar (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks! --Citron (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me now, changing my vote to Support.--Snaevar (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trivial composition (on grass? centered?). - Moros y Christianos 20:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euuuuh? It's a fruit. When ripe, it falls to the ground. It's so a natural background! For the composition, I don't know what to do for a "ball"...--Citron (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Well... Ya coulda maybe taken a cross section shot or something, because honestly this looks more like a discarded wiffleball then some plant's fruit. I guess it's a good photograph, but it looks more like litter than botany. =\ -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jon C (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating! TFCforever (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Edgard de Souza - Dor de Cabeça (Inhotim).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2011 at 09:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Edgar de Souza - uploaded by Dornicke - nominated by Eugenio Hansen, OFS
Oppose，构图不好--shizhao (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Angle's not ideal. The weather and surroundings kind of works with these darkish statues though. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good technically.--Snaevar (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: Per IdLoveOne. TFCforever (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]