Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2009

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

File:House wren - food drops.ogv, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 17:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by qmnonic - uploaded by Kozuch - nominated by Kozuch -- Kozuch (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kozuch (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pity for the resolution, but the quality, educativeness and rarity of this free video gets my support! Diti the penguin — 19:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I intentionally uploaded the lower resolution even as HD is available (because of people with low bandwidth). There is no problem to upload the HD version, you can watch it on Flickr for now. As there are close to no official rules for video now, I just did not know how to behave, whether to do low-res or high-res. --Kozuch (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Low resolution (of course: low to a reasonable scale) is better, because of the bandwith. Remember that you aren't very likely to put an 800px wide video into an article. And even if you insert it as, say, 480px, it won't increase the speed of loading anyway. Wolf (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, so I suppose current 640×360 pixels is not a real low-res for a video. If someone thinks this cant get featured at this resolution, I will upload HD.--Kozuch (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suspect in the long term we'll want high res, just as we do for photos. It can't be that hard to produce scaled down versions, but it's impossible to scale up. 99of9 (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a rare sight that someone dares to nominate anything but a static picture here. Great quality! -- JovanCormac 07:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High educational value and interesting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the first two seconds should be cut from the video. There's nothing happening, really. -- JovanCormac 20:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the video is not too long and doesn't need to be cut, is less than 30 seconds, and the first two are precious: you can hear the bird and begin to understand what is the subject --Phyrexian (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Right, its very educational and interesting, but this is commons and not wikipedia. And for videos the same rules should apply as for pictures. The composition is rather boring --Simonizer (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you completely miss a point here. There is no language and that means this video is nicely useful accross various projects and languages, that makes it uniques for a Commons (featured) candidate.--Kozuch (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think you can see anything well enough - the bird is tiny, and we can't even see it feeding the chicks, just going into the box. It's nice, but not quite wow enough. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Jovan --Phyrexian (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As Simonizer, common video not close to FP status. I also have some doubts as whether videos should be evaluated here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunatelly dedicated process for video does not exist yet. --Kozuch (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Silversmith. 99of9 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain We have no guidelines about videos. /Daniel78 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brombeerlaub.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 15:16:04

Info Leaf of an unidentified plant; not a species of Rubus as the filename suggests. Minimal educational value, which is a major requirement for Commons. (Original nomination)
Delist -- MPF (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The leaf is from the bushes see photo below --je-str (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That looks like blackberry to me. Also, this picture was only just nominated for FP, doesn't it kind of render the voting process pointless if people spend time voting to feature a picture only to have it instantly delisted? --Silversmith Hewwo 21:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if this is a Rubus leaf, then apparently it is very educational since it seems the current images we have don't give a good enough idea of what the leaves actually look like. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Petritap (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 10:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:University Hall Northwestern.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2009 at 05:32:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info University Hall, Northwestern University Author - Madcoverboy - nominated by Anon -- 122.169.82.44 05:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is terrible. -- JovanCormac 07:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image is not centred on the building and the crop is poor. Image is tilted more to left side of the building. --Korman (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop --Leafnode✉ 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unusual perspective. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ce n'est pas bien. Pardon. -- Autofan45 (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Photographs of architecture should have their perspective corrected as much as possible, for example to make naturally-parallel lines appear parallel in the image rather than converging railroad-tracks style; many digital tools exist by which to accomplish this. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At this point of look perspective are OK, but crop non-acceptable. More space and top and bottom need --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Woodbridge isothermal chart3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 18:43:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Channing Woodbridge - uploaded by Jujutacular - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Woodbridge isothermal chart.jpg by Jujutacular and Durova -- Durova (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Historic map of the world that shows Alexander von Humboldt's isothermal lines. Published 1823.
Support -- Durova (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job. Takabeg (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to support the restoration of this map :) Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's fascinating to see that even in 1823, there were "white spots" on the map, and Canada was largely unknown as well. -- JovanCormac 07:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really fascinating... --Phyrexian (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yiddish WWI poster2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2009 at 07:34:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Charles Edward Chambers - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Yiddish WWI poster.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info World War I era poster in Yiddish. Translation: "Food will win the war - You came here seeking freedom, now you must help to preserve it - Wheat is needed for the allies - waste nothing".
Support -- Durova (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Of course. Takabeg (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good restoration work. Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. -- JovanCormac 14:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Thank you! --Phyrexian (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, 12th AU Summit, 090202-N-0506A-337.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 05:52:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jesse B. Awalt - uploaded by Martin H., edited by Grondin - nominated by 67.220.5.154 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- 67.220.5.154 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'd love to promote this, but the image noise is hard to ignore. -- JovanCormac 08:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I suggest denoising this. --Aqwis (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would one go about de-noising the image? I really like this one, and want to help get it featured. Really, what I'm asking is what needs to be done to eliminate noise. Thanks. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - There are several tools available for denoising. I have found Neat Image to be quite good (they also have a demo version, which can do close to everything the full version can. -- JovanCormac 17:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Even if this was fixed up, I find the eyes way too scary on the guy in the background. Otherwise I would have supported. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish original n.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2009 at 03:27:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but IMO too unsharp, lots of CA and bad framing. —kallerna™ 10:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is an action shot, that shows motion. Could you please point me out to CA (I do not see it) and be more specific about fraiming (I could fix it). Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The fish that one of the cormorans carries in its beak makes the picture exceptional enough to excuse the slight quality problems. -- JovanCormac 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You call this right wing of the left bird a "slight quality" problem!? --AngMoKio (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think most of the issues brought up on previous vote on other version of this image are still valid. Also this version introduced new errors: why the bird on the left has its left wing cut at its base? It wasn't like that on the original, so it's probably bad photomanipulation - and that's another point to oppose for, as I'd like to vote for a photograph, not a clone stamp. --Leafnode✉ 18:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "bad photomanipulation", it is good photomanipulation, and retouched template|manual cloning was added to the image, as soon as it was uploaded. I wanted to see, if people, who have not seen the original image will notice that "bad photomanipulation" , but I guess you had to spoil all the fun. Oh well...

Yeah, cutting off real part of a wing is a very good photomanipulation. If not for this, it could have been quite good, but as I've seen the previous nomination, it wasn't any 'fun' for me. --Leafnode✉ 09:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is for sure not a good photomanipulation. It is just another photo where you try to pimp up your photos with obvious post-processing - it really gets annoying. And to tell now that it was just a fun-project to see if people recognize it makes it even worse. FPC is not the place to do such things...you can do that at "Photography Critiques". Sometimes i wonder if people actually look at the photos they vote for. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

really? The only difference that I added retouched template, the other person did not. And how about that sea otter File:Sea otter nursing02.jpg that actually was that sea otter File:Sea otter nursing.jpg once again with no retouched template added to the image. These are only two examples of who knows how many. And how about this nomination of yours,AngMoKio? The image was taken in ZOO, but presented as it was taken in a wild, while my question about ZOO info was ignored. What have I done? Did I add an extra ring to Saturn? Did I add a new crater to the Moon? Did I changed a historic image? No, no, no. I added the wing that was cut off in the original. What has changed? Still one bird is running after another, that has the fish. It was not obvious post-processing. Even Leafnode said, if he/she did not see the original, he/she would not have never guessed. The nominaton was withdrawn. If you want to comment you could continue to do it at my talk page please.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kremnica (Kremnitz, Körmöcbánya) - Plague Column (part2).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 11:53:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is not exceptionnal (blown reflections in the golden parts, noise...). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Squirrel Posing at Logan Pass.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 07:27:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by AlexAH - uploaded by AlexAH - nominated by AlexAH -- AlexAH (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AlexAH (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute squirrel. Unfortunately there is a blue fringe running along the horizon of the background (and the sky is blown). --99of9 (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry - nice squirrel but the sky/background is overexposed. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose central composition, deep DoF, overexposed sky --Leafnode✉ 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RSD-10 2009 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 12:19:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by George Chernilevsky ^talk -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info SS-20 Saber a.k.a. RSD-10 Pioneer . Intermediate-range (Europe-range) Soviet ballistic missile with 3 nuclear warheads.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Theoretically a fine subject, but the composition is relatively poor (distractions, background objects, shade etc.). —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Anonymous. Sigmund Freud would love this, though. -- JovanCormac 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good resolution, good quality, high EV, and I cannot think how it could have been photographed with a better composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting objects and the nose-cone of an aircraft in the background. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Snowmanradio --AngMoKio (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Umnik (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Other object in background is too distracting. --Korman (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distracting background - too deep DoF, could have had more space. --Leafnode✉ 08:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hoquei kfrg paulinia amparo.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2009 at 17:13:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rodrigo Moraes - uploaded by Richard Melo da Silva - nominated by Richard Melo da Silva -- RmSilva ^{pode falar!} 17:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RmSilva ^{pode falar!} 17:13, 2 December 2009 (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: size and water mark--Mbz1 (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Birdo.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2009 at 10:08:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Anderson Façanha - uploaded by Richard Melo da Silva - nominated by Richard Melo da Silva -- RmSilva ^{pode falar!} 10:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RmSilva ^{pode falar!} 10:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: The subject is way too small to show enough detail, and at full resolution there is a great deal of noise on both the subject and the sky. I suggest you look through the already-featured images of birds before future nominations. --99of9 (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Theatro de Paulínia.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2009 at 10:13:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Maurício Kanno - uploaded by Richard Melo da Silva - nominated by Richard Melo da Silva -- RmSilva ^{pode falar!} 10:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RmSilva ^{pode falar!} 10:13, 3 December 2009 (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: Resolution too low, underexposed, bad composition and tilt. No chance of promotion.

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.

-- JovanCormac 11:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:US Navy gas mask excerise 021015-N-6996M-589.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2009 at 08:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Shane T. McCoy (US Navy) - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The yellow attachment is a MILES. And yes, I'm aware of the large space on the right, but I think the picture benefits from the off centre composition. Feel free to disagree. :P
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOWWWW --Muhammad (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing composition. -- JovanCormac 09:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Enough to get on your POTY list? :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what I thought as well, though the mosquito below is also a good candidate. -- JovanCormac 11:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy 4 me. —kallerna™ 11:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, considering that he's walking around in cloud of smoke, some noise is to be expected... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfull oppose i like military photos, but this really too noised. :( -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hate image noise, but in this special case I think it actually enhances the image, since it looks like the soldier is walking through dirty, green fog. -- JovanCormac 15:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree about the noise. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Noise adds to this image.--Silversmith Hewwo 21:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition of a subject that is quite tricky to photograph. Jopparn (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The look in the eye gets me. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Notyourbroom, long time no see! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jklamo (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise. --NEURO ^⇌ 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exceptional composition. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose JukoFF (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise --Phyrexian (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as above. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not unusual enough to make up for the noise. Noise in the dust would be ok, but not on his helmet. --99of9 (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bibl. Malatestiana 3.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2009 at 20:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uomodis08 - uploaded by Uomodis08 - nominated by Uomodis08 -- Uomodis08 (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uomodis08 (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2009 (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: low resolutin--Mbz1 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dead Vlei Duene.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 19:25:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition! —kallerna™ 10:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 18:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent! MartinD (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Classic, but wow! --Phyrexian (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Immer wieder schön diese Wüstenbilder. Ich muss da, glaub ich, auch mal hin --Simonizer (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Congos concert Stockholm 2009-10-31--15.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 17:32:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Korall - uploaded by Korall - nominated by Korall I love their expressions. I hate myself for not cappturing the hand of the man to the left. I am sorry that I do not know who is who in the group. Maybe someone can help me?-- Korall (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp, bad composition and nothing special -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, had no chance to kidnap them and fit the into my non-existing studio. Of course theyre special to any roots reggae-loving person.--Korall (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Maybe this is a Valued image, but not a featured! -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Had you waited more than 7 minutes between me opposing your candidate and you opposing mine there might have been a chance of me taking this seriously. And there is also this thing about you downsampling your (studio take of a dead object) image and complaining about sharpess issues of my highest possible resolution (poor light conditions and moving peolple) image. I just do not think thats is fair. Please think a minute or two next time before angry-voting. --Korall (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the flash isn't the best light in image like this. Agree with Der Wolf for valued image. --Cesco77 (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think I would have supported if the hand wasn't chopped. --99of9 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australian Flag Flying animated.gif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2009 at 11:18:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- 99of9 (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is cool. -- JovanCormac 12:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ce n'est pas assez exclusive. -- Autofan45 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info As far as I know it is the only animated gif flag on commons that was not computer generated. --99of9 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too few frames, could have been much smoother. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And much heavier, and not possible due to the FPS limit on most DSLRs. Diti the penguin — 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure how valid a defense that is. My DSLR has a full-fledged video mode, as do many currently on the market. Point-and-shoots have had that sort of capability for more than half a decade, too. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yours may do, but what about people like me, who buy standard DSLRs from Nikon (D40) or Canon (450D)? This category of DSLRs is the most common, and not every people is willing to buy every new camera that comes to the market. Diti the penguin — 13:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whatever the reason it does not make this look any smoother. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do not know what you mean by "standard" DSLRs; Nikon sells DSLRs at several price points with video recording capability, including the Nikon D5000, Nikon D90, Nikon D300S, and Nikon D3S. I'm not as familiar with Canon's models, but my point is that video recording capability is not unusual at all in modern cameras. It's certainly not restricted to high-end models. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would think a video would have been much a better medium to illustrate this through; Commons is a repository of video as well as images, after all. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I chose the format in preference to video because I believe it will be more widely used than a video equivalent. IMO usefullness is easily as important as frames per second. Not all movies can be squashed into 256 colours, but flags are great candidates. 99of9 (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cool :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a monster on graphics card. If you put three or four of these on a page your browser would freeze. ~ R.T.G 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know it's going to fail anyway, but I don't think this is a fair oppose reason. I made the image 2000x2000 to give users as much flexibility as possible, they are always welcome to downscale as much as they want. The rules say not to downsample. --99of9 (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dilma Rousseff 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2009 at 00:33:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wilson Dias - uploaded by Felipe Menegaz - nominated by Felipe Menegaz -- Felipe Menegaz 00:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The picture captured the soul of Dilma Rousseff as the "Iron Lady". Felipe Menegaz 15:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Felipe Menegaz 00:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lighting. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that the lighting is not a problem. Felipe Menegaz 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lighting is wonderful, it's the crop that seems a little awkward. It draws attention away from her face. --Calibas (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think so. When I see this picture, her face captivate me, draws all my attention. This picture is very powerful... Felipe Menegaz 18:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

File:Procyon lotor (Linnaeus 1758).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2009 at 22:23:29 (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) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --99of9 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good! --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fur is unsharp, also lots of image noise. -- JovanCormac 08:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good subject, but have Low DOF, low details and too noise. --Cesco77 (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)--[reply]
Support Useful and good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cesco77. Yes it's useful and good, but that alone doesn't make it a FP IMO. --NEURO ^⇌ 18:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good and useful image, but it does not meet the technical requirements for FPs. --High Contrast (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)) 00:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Martian Dust Devil Trails.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 12:26:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/JPL/University of Arizona - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This image shows twisting dark trails criss-crossing light coloured terrain on the Martian surface. These trails are now known to be the work of miniature wind vortices known to occur on the red planet.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating picture, I believe it's almost impossible to detect what it's about w/o reading the description page... My brain couldn't decide what my eyes were staring at: sheer fabric? Human tattooed skin? An eerie impression for sure. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic, nice and ultra-rare -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per George above. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is also the Picture of the Month in the december edition of Scientific American. -- JovanCormac 17:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while description is interesting, the image itself makes absolutely no impression on me, especially when not on full-view. --Leafnode✉ 19:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, looks like a weird tat xD -Nard the Bard 04:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too intresting and rare to oppose --Phyrexian (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FriedC (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mirów Castle - 15.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2009 at 09:36:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Piotrus - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The perspective of this picture makes the ruined castle still loom large and imposing, even after all these years. If you don't like the tilt, I've got a modified version I can upload.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Significant sharpness issues, dull colors. -- JovanCormac 10:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neochmia temporalis Cleland 2009 - 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2009 at 11:28:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Peripitus -- Peripitus (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peripitus (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 11:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support High detail, very good --Cesco77 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What a pretty bird. Tiptoety ^talk 06:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Korall (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but please geolocate. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

roughly geolocated now - Peripitus (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Painted Cliffs.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 12:10:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is some info at http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=1490 about this rock feature. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pretty. --99of9 (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Excellent --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, nice --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Karel (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are those rocks on the foreground really that blue? —kallerna™ 09:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info These are wet stones reflect the blue sky. Look are natural in this case. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is this edit (File:Painted Cliffs auto wb.jpg). I have no preference but the natural white balance is quite blue when the sun has well and truly set. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love rocks, and those are beautiful no doubt! Yet, I do not like the composition, and I cannot help it. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Im convinced.--Korall (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Mbz1 here. Lovely picture but unbalanced composition --Simonizer (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Mila. —kallerna™ 11:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FEMA - 12695 - Photograph by Barry Markowitz taken on 02-19-2005 in American Samoa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2009 at 12:03:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Barry Markowitz, FEMA - uploaded by Multichill - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now, I know not everyone is going to agree with me (hey, what else is new? :P) but I think that this image has the potential, not only to be featured, but to be Picture of the Day, December 25th 2009. Why? Well, in the past, we've only ever had one christmas themed image for POTD, and that was more of celebrations during Christmas than the event itself. So I decided that I'd try and get a festive FP for Commons. For 2 weeks I went looking through the various yuletide categories, examining hundreds of images of lights, decorations, presents, food, people and trees, seeking out the biggest and best for Christmas day. I found many grand and expansive images, but it seemed as if each of them had been specially crafted to look great in thumbnail, but horrible at full size. Onward and upward I pressed, discarding 12Mpx images left and right, determined to bring home the perfect picture. I had tried every search term I could think of, and had almost given up, when at the bottom of the screen, I spotted a tree. Not a large tree, not a tree draped with lights and streamers, in a city square or surrounded by rosy faced children; but a small tree, decked with simple red bows, perched atop an errant boulder, with a somewhat elderly gentleman holding it steady. Having already convinced myself that my search had been fruitless, I nonetheless clicked on the link, idle curiosity and utter exhaustion piling atop one another to see just why this man looked so proud of what was a very small and obviously weathered and threadbare plastic Christmas tree. "What possible reason" thought I, "could someone have for being happy with that scrawny thing?" It was then that I happened to glance at the caption. That tree, that small, weathered tree had been sucked out with the storm surge of en:Cyclone Olaf, a Category 5 cyclone that struck American Samoa in February 2005. Reading the article, I realised that the gentleman in the picture, Ioasa To'o, was from Tau Island, the hardest hit area by the storm. This is a man who quite possibly lost most of his worldly possessions, had certainly seen friends have all they owned ruined, and had his home island devastated. It was then that I realised I had found what I had been searching for. This was what the spirit of Christmas is about. Not gifts, or carols or lights, not even about trees. What this photo says to me is 'hope'. Even amongst disaster, the true spirit of Christmas, embodied in this tiny, unassuming tree, shines through. Just this once, I'm ignoring quality all together. For a picture like this, I wouldn't care if it was 100 pixels by 400 pixels. Wherever you may be, a Merry Christmas to you all. May it be as insightful as mine has been.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, ok you've persuaded me :) Personally, I don't care much about the "spirit of Christmas", but this picture has a story, so I don't mind not so good quality. I'm not sure about the tilt, though. The tree maybe looks better fully vertical, but still... --Lošmi (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yea, it could be POTD, but not featured. Too much compressed and too much contrast. —kallerna™ 14:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with kallerna. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna, too dark foreground --Leafnode✉ 18:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kallerna --Cesco77 (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well, I love themed POTD, and I love this pic, because of the composition and because of the history of the subject, also sometimes I can support a low quality image because of its history, but I will not in this case. The quality is too low, and every day in the year is an "holy-day" in some cultures or religions, western christmas IMHO is not better than the National Women's Day or the Tu Bishvat. And I oppose to not featured POTD, if we have a featured picture for christmas I will support for 25 of December, but if we have not, let's try to found one for the next year... --Phyrexian (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's try to use this year's Christmas to make a few FPs for 2010, -11, -12, etc. :) Wolf (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC) PS The article on Tu Bishvat says it's a minor holiday, so yes, Christmas is "better" in the sense that it's a major holiday, like the Yom Kippur rather.[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pillar Point Harbor.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2009 at 14:13:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was looking at the water to find some stiching errors in between waves but it just looks so perfect!--Korall (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely mood. I did find some stitching seams, but in waves I don't think that's possible to avoid, and they were certainly not eyesores. --99of9 (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- JovanCormac 07:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done, nice atmosphere --AngMoKio (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and not post processe at all, just as you like :)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep doing that way :) --AngMoKio (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well . . . wow. Stunning work, Mila! Maedin\^talk 12:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Notyourbroom (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everybody seems to like the image, and that's why I would like to share with you the whole picture. The surf on the right hand side was not post processed at all. It looked like this in the real life. I tried to come up with something I could compare it to, and I thought it looked as ink, maybe black ink. So here's the whole image, not for voting, but just to see

--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ceiling of the main nave.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2009 at 05:09:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Szilas - uploaded by Szilas - nominated by Szilas -- Szilas (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Szilas (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, there's heavy noise at full resolution. --99of9 (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Homeless woman.jpg

File:Lincoln conspirators execution2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 02:46:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alexander Gardner - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Lincoln conspirators execution.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Execution of conspirators to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. From left to right: Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, and George Atzerodt. July 7, 1865.
Support -- Durova (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. -- JovanCormac 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- GerardM (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Terrible! --Phyrexian (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Amsterdam Centraal Station2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 16:38:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Detroit Publishing Co. - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Amsterdam Centraal Station.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info 1890s photochrom print of Amsterdam Centraal railway station.
Support -- Durova (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Multichill (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job. Takabeg (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really, good job! --Phyrexian (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crops at the bottom and the left removed more than just the border. --99of9 (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can count the windows on the left edge of the building and the tree trunks to confirm that no excess was cropped. The printer's text was removed digitally rather than by cropping. Durova (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the entire text was cropped, but there is definitely a crop. Regarding the windows, there is a dark pillar just below and to the left of the windows on the original, which has been cropped out. I can post comparison crops if you really want, but I think it will be clear to you if you bring them up side by side and zoom to 100%. --99of9 (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might have taken out a couple of extra pixels just in order to get the crop vertical. The difference is barely visible to me, but if that's what you mean rather than the text then no objection; you're entitled to your opinon. :) Often the camera orientation and original printing is off by a fraction of a degree. So it's rotation that tends to cause that. Durova (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Apophyllitestilbite.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 16:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

apophyllite-(KF) with stilbite - Nasik quarry,India - (10.3x7.2cm)

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus (talk) - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus (talk) - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus (talk) -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality, nice green colours inside crystal --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support splendid --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --99of9 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 18:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Krokusse violett.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 21:42:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Der Wolf im Wald - uploaded by Der Wolf im Wald - nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say, it looks overprocessed. Saturation has been exagerated, brightness has been overly enhanced ; furthermore, it seems that some sharpness enhancement has been applied, leaving a weird fringe around the left ridge of the centermost bud. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated —kallerna™ 10:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have decreased the saturation. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just like violet colors :) The out-of-focus of the distant plan is also good. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. --Calibas (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp, good use of DOF, nice colours. Schöne Arbeit!. ~~I cant see any oversaturation here, not by any stretch of the imagination. Can you please show me the part in the picture where the colours are blurred caused by oversaturation, kallerna?~~ --Simonizer (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now i have seen that he has changed the saturation after your comment --Simonizer (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nicolas17 (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Petra Jordan BW 26.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 16:18:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner|
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose motion blur, distracting background --Leafnode✉ 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Motion blur, background, she looks like she is up to something.--Korall (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture tells its own story; the blur is part of it. Wolf (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree if the blur wasn't on the first plane --Leafnode✉ 17:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great blur, great subjects, great background - except the tourists! --99of9 (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Motion blur, crop. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Francisco Bay, Golden Gate Bridge and Marin Headlands at sunset.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 22:05:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality and nice colours --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finally a sunset-long exposure -photo that I can support! Exposure is just ideal (not too long as usually) and I love that rock on foreground. Good job! —kallerna™ 10:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition - not enough space in the upper part, cut shore on the right. --Leafnode✉ 19:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not cut shore. It is what is seen from that place.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean there's nothing more to the right, at the small bay? --Leafnode✉ 09:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not what I said. I said I took an image as what is seen from that place. I should have said I took the image of what my camera placed at tripod was able to see from that place. There is a cliff, and a high security fence all over the perimeter of the cliff. My tripod could not go any higher, security fence was on the way.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image. Unfortunately the composition feels a little cramped on the right. --99of9 (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think if you caught more of the sky or more of the rock below it would have been better. The colours are beautiful ~ R.T.G 00:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC) In close up I think its nice ~ R.T.G 08:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the rock below. As I explained above it was not possible to capture the rock because the secirity fence was on the way. About the sky, the original image had more sky, but for some unknown reason :) I decided to crop it out. Oh, well.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schloss Chenonceau.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 19:31:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wladyslaw Sojka - uploaded by Überraschungsbilder - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC) (although it would have been nicer even if the sea was more flat)[reply]
Support -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but we already have a very similar one File:Chateau de Chenonceau 2008E.jpg with not cut off castle.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While the composition of that image admittedly is better, the quality is astonishingly bad for a FP. --NEURO ^⇌ 22:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per NEUROtiker : the quality of that image is not even close to a FP. The composition of the current candidate, while arguably not optimal, is perfectly acceptable.

I tried to retouch it. --AM (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Valuable quality and composition. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is much better than the existing one. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main subject is cut off. Sometimes it is all, but impossible not to cut off the main subject, but from the other image we know that in this particular situation it was possible to have the whole picture.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Mila. —kallerna™ 10:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mbz1 --Leafnode✉ 18:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Composition. I see no excuse for cutting off part of the building. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Part of the building is cut off to improve the composition... And I was under the impression that kind of stuff doesn't matter for FP anyway. --Calibas (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Quality is really good, but the crop have no excuse, sorry --Cesco77 (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop. --AM (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arctocephalus pusillus 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2009 at 23:26:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hans Hillewaert - uploaded by Hans Hillewaert - nominated by User:RTG -- ~ R.T.G 23:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support African seal. I didn't see one like this before. Obviously funny and was made Quality 18 months ago but not FP. Don't see any bad colour parts or anything. Of course there is an object in the foreground but it's a big picture. GLuck ~ R.T.G 23:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC) The object frames I thought ~ R.T.G 23:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The foreground object is probably just another seal. They live in close proximity.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its a cutie. --Korall (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support But should we really be holding this trial in absentia? ;) (sorry, I'm a terrible person) —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely! —kallerna™ 10:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Aw! What a cute little baby face. Tiptoety ^talk 02:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Campesino Venezolano, Edo. Yaracuy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2009 at 02:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wilfredo Rodríguez - uploaded by Wilfredo Rodríguez - nominated by Wilfredo Rodríguez -- Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background, bad quality on full size. —kallerna™ 17:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a very good documentary photograph. What Do you mean by composition, sorry? There is a high awareness of the composition, sorry - that's what I have to say. What I see maybe distracting is the colors are too dull. And pixel-quality is no worse than many of featured photographs here. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't it balance better if it was cropped from the right a little past the first handlebar of the bike? ~ R.T.G 00:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contrast Balance or balance of composition? --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just mean it would focus the mind on the man without removing so much of the background. Balance of the mind! At the moment his figure appears from one half of the picture. This would mean that you imagine each side of the picture is as interesting as the other but when you look at the other side all you see is this bike with half a board or something its way. The fruit and even the bike are interesting but the board looks unnatural so it takes your attention to figure out what it is and when it is still just some weird old board you don't know what it is... if you moved him further toward the center he would take the full frame and the board thing wouldn't even be in the shot. The legs of the board are fine but the board thing itself wrecks it. I thought about this for a while! GLuck

~ R.T.

CommentI've been thinking about what you said. I made a version by removing details that distract a little central focus of the image. I would like to hear your opinion, thank you very much. --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Comment I like this crop much better. Interesting image. Unfortunately it is still a bit too noisy and unsharp in the details (e.g. the mans face). --99of9 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. So here earn the best cameras and not the best photographers. You can not work miracles with inexpensive cameras. Unfortunately money makes a difference. --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is about the best pictures, not cameras or photographers, some combination of both. There are occasional miracles, here's a recent one: File:Young_muslim_woman_in_the_Thar_desert_near_Jaisalmer,_India.jpg so I'd encourage you to continue trying! --99of9 (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto Covo November 2009-1a.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 23:36:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal.View from south. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very detailed -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulations!--Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. Tiptoety ^talk 07:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view. Could be a featured one. But from the left side to the point with the little boat the picture is too blurry, and because of that there are some stiching errors --Simonizer (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- Thanks for noticing, Simon. It is fixed now. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What have you done? The whole picture is still blurry at the left side from the bottom to the top and especially at the bottom there are still many stitching errors --Simonizer (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info - Nothing can be done about the blurring, but the stitching errors were fixed (again) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Simonizer. Also I do not like blown-out highlights in some of the waves. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info - No blown highlights in either of the three basic colours, that is an easy check to make. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe I used a wrong term, I meant I did not like lack of details in some of the white part of the waves.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Desiccation-cracks hg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2009 at 11:35:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hannes Grobe - uploaded by Hannes Grobe - nominated by Erin Silversmith -- Silversmith Hewwo 11:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Silversmith Hewwo 11:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic. -- JovanCormac 14:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Korall (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please geolocate this residential development ? </pun> --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it does indeed look a lot like a sci-fi residential development. --Aqwis (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lookatthis (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 10:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for sure --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Böhringer (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beat me to it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Calopteryx splendens LC0156.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2009 at 21:21:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info a female Banded Demoiselle (Calopteryx splendens). Especially the males of that species are very noticable with their colorful body and their swaying fly like butterflies. But also the females are very attractive.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent! -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Just out of curiosity: the background is the sky or some artificial, studio surface? Wolf (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The water surface. As it is reflective, you see at last the sky ;-) --LC-de (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not good enough clarity. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very clear to me. 99of9 (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 11:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO our macro-standards are higher. It's just too small. —kallerna™ 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per kallerna. -- JovanCormac 07:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have so much better Zygoptera pictures already featured showing more detail. Main subject is kind of small compared to for example File:Calopteryx_virgo_male.jpg and File:Thomas_Bresson_-_Ishn-eleg-2_(by).jpg and File:Damselfly_October_2007_Osaka_Japan.jpg. I dont think it fits in the leauge. --Korall (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Plain insect macro doesn't make a featured. inisheer (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canon EOS 400D.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2009 at 19:26:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose EOS 50D gives you 15MP to play around with in a studio shot. Why leave us here with just over 2?--Korall (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had to crop it, so the resolution decreased. Besides a resolution of more than 2mp is enough for such an object without small and fine details. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, and 640kB are enough memory for everybody as well... --Dschwen (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why did you choose to crop the shadow on the right? --99of9 (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion the shadow is irrelevant for the encyclopedic function of the picture. In thumb view the camera would be smaller (in the same image size) if the sadow would not be cropped and you could not see the details of the camera as good as now. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - InfoAn earlier version was a high resolution image so I reverted. Its better now IMO, but the shadow is still cropped. I willing to support a crop with the shadow is seen in full.--Korall (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI and maybe VI (maybe I shouldn't say it, but this one lacks the "wow"). —kallerna™ 17:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resolution seems to be high enough. -- Nicolas17 (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is best photo in category, nice look --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too shallow DOF for such a static picture (the flash for example is quite unsharp). — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Partly per Kallerna however it really isn't sharp enough in my view either. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM 'Het verslepen van de steen 'Darodaro' voor de gestorven Saoenigeho van Bawamataloea Nias TMnr 1000095b.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2009 at 06:09:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM 'Het verslepen van de steen 'Darodaro' voor de gestorven Saoenigeho van Bawamataloea Nias TMnr 10000952.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Indonesian megalith during transport, circa 1915. Additional notes here. Durova (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Durova (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WOW GerardM (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Amazing! --Silversmith Hewwo 14:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome!!! Jacopo Werther (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - comparing this and the original, that is a very sympathetic restoration - Peripitus (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Bad crop at the bottom. Please reshoot. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Just kidding[reply]

Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 01:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AM (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Blago Tebi (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Leaf trails.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2009 at 05:54:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThere was an Image at Astronomy Picture of the Day.I wanted to take a similar image, but with no mery-go-round. I secured my camera at a chair that was able to turn, took it to back yard, put it under a tree, and turned it around. The picture was not processed. I believe, if a similar image was good enough to be featured at APOD, the nominated image should be good enoug to be featured here too :) So let's see...
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very creative and aesthetically pleasing. -- JovanCormac 10:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "beautiful does not always mean valuable" :) nice experiment though :) --Leafnode✉ 16:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The similar Image was used at Astronomy Picture of the Day and at Spaceweather.com. The image was also used here. I believe NASA sites featured the image on their front pages because...well, because it is not valuable.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Too bad this is not NASA site and this picture contains no explanation of why it's so valuable. --Leafnode✉ 21:22, 2 Decmber 2009 (UTC)
  - Well, what I tried to say that IMO if three NASA sites felt the image is valued enough to feature it, to oppose for not being valued sounds kind of strange. The creator of the original image used it in children book to illustrate earth rotation for kids, for example. Kids read Commons too. At first I wanted to upload APOD image here, but it was copyrighted. So I ended up taking one myself. I provided the link to APOD image in my image's description. Besides everything else the image also illustrates rotation. There are very few images in that category. Besides the value of the image is in its uniqueness. IMO it is valuable more than enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, but oppose. To oppose, or not to oppose, that is the question. Yes, the APOD is valuable. Yes, I would suport the APOD. Yes, the APOD is better - the swirl does not cover the entire picture, and that's why it can be used for the abovementioned educational purposes. Wolf (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand why because in APOD image "the swirl does not cover the entire picture" it is better for educational purpose. the star trails that the image is used to illustrate do cover the entire picture. IMO my images looks more as the real one than APOD does.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me parahrase: I believe the movement should be shown in relation to something, the foreground or the background. Wolf (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would have been nice, if it were possible in such a particular situation, but it is not, unless I am not to do "a bad photo manipulation" :) IMO the only difference between APOD image and mine that APOD image has some blown-out highlights and mine does not.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very interesting way to visually analogize the circumpolar motion of the stars (caused by the rotation of the Earth relative to the effectively-static background) to the sort of rotation naturally seen when sitting in a rotating device like a chair or merry-go-round against the effectively-static background of the Earth. I dig it. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't see the value of this image. Even the colors are not realy my taste, what makes it bit borring. --Niabot (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is really, as JC said, aesthetically pleasing. Wolf (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this version At full resolution, the original version looks better IMO. -- JovanCormac 18:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Support Very interesting way to visually analogize the circumpolar motion of the stars (caused by the rotation of the Earth relative to the effectively-static background) to the sort of rotation naturally seen when sitting in a rotating device like a chair or merry-go-round against the effectively-static background of the Earth. I dig it. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck because I meant to type that under the main nomination, not the alt. :) —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yann (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Leaf trails.JPG

File:Lentos Art Museum.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2009 at 01:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish the building was not cut off, but interesting shot anyway.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is too random (lantern pole, silhouettes of people, contrail) and the crop hurts the picture. There are also sharpness issues in the left half of the image. -- JovanCormac 10:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't like the crop --Cesco77 (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and the silhouettes of people :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition not striking enough. --99of9 (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me the structures that are seen in the natural frame of the main subject make the composition interesting.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AlfredPalmerM3tank1942b.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2009 at 09:45:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alfred Palmer - uploaded and edited by Durova - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question This picture shows what appears to be JPEG compression artifacts/scanner noise but might as well be film grain (the photo is from 1942). Can anyone confirm that it is the latter? -- JovanCormac 10:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is rather film grain IMO. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support then. -- JovanCormac 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support very nice and ultra-rare old color photo. It is M3 Lee modification, named in memory Robert Edward Lee --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support For George Chernilevsky. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes yes yes. Takabeg (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WWII in Kentucky? I would like to see a real action shot. —kallerna™ 17:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Color photography was very rare in 1942. This appears to have been shot on Kodak sheet film, which was higher quality but far more expensive than other processes that were invented after the war. The Alfred Palmer photos from training operations in Kentucky are the only color images I have ever found of World War II tanks in operation during their useful lifespan. Even at a training camp this was a difficult shot; the dust cloud posed a danger to the camera. This was about as far as WWII technology could go. Durova (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Of course --Cesco77 (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but what is the wierd banding I can see in the sky - light-dark-light-dark etc... ? - Peripitus (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Apparently it's a characteristic of the film. The same effect can be seen here. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Citrus reticulata fruit 2009 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2009 at 10:41:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not fancy the wieving angle or background. Maybe just one or two of the fruits against a single-colured backgrond seen from the side? I think that could bring out more detail and keep it simple. --Korall (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment viewing angle are normal, it is only angle of wood pattern :) --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I kind of didnt like the wood pattern, cause its too much information competing with the fruit for my attention. Sorry friend. --Korall (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, don't worry, my friend. Fair opinion is important for me --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. I like it so much. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 12:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as Korall. --Aqwis (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shallow DOF, almost nothing's in focus ; flash lighting causes harsh white reflections on the fruits ; weird light reflecting off the table just behind the plate, distracting from the main subject. Sorry to sound so un-enthusiastic... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad light, odd colours and just average quality. —kallerna™ 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think you can replace this image better without flash and adding white (or black) background IMO --Cesco77 (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose light --Leafnode✉ 16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Etosha elefant.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2009 at 08:46:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice quality and composition.--Korall (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 20:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful composition. Tiptoety ^talk 01:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok quality, stunning composition. —kallerna™ 11:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --Moise Nicu (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit too uncentred, but otherwise great. Wolf (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 83.15.210.186 15:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, but please log in to vote. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Basik07 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC) - sorry I didn't noticed I'm loged out[reply]

Support --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Botanica 2009 in Bad Schallerbach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2009 at 21:07:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the colors and composition! --Calibas (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Calibas.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have you boosted the colours? IMO it looks bit oversaturated. —kallerna™ 11:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I aktivated "VI Brillant" in the menu of the camera. This saturate the colours. I think you mean this. In the future I try "NL Neutral" without any saturation. In this file I made the white colour darker to get the colour of the way and reduce the white reflexion in the cap of the garden gnom. I brightened the green colour to avoid an oversaturation of the grass. I reduced the blue in the red colour to remove the blue cast of the lunchtime. I made the sky noiseless and sharpened the enlarged image a little only for the resulution 1600x1200 pixel. The enlarged image is also not realy sharp in smaller resolutions like 1152x864 pixel. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated A little oversaturated for me. --99of9 (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Removing my oppose. --99of9 (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I made an update with less saturation.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition, hard light, oversaturated colours. inisheer (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Close-up of a cat.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2009 at 02:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Laveol - uploaded by User:Laveol - nominated by User:Laveol -- Laveol (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laveol (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very cute.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Don't care much for the crop. Sorry, Tiptoety ^talk 06:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely cat just not FP for me, sorry. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It sure is cute but the DOF could be better. Had this been a very rare kind of animal I could have supported but cats are just too common not to expect perfection. --Korall (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All cats are purrfect...;) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course they are, but the pictures of them is a different thing.
Oppose random snapshot --Leafnode✉ 16:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that poor kitten :( Just look into his eyes. Don't you see how much poor thing wants to be featured :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, sure she loves :) Umm, to be honest, though, I nominated her cause I thought this pic was that little better than the current cat (or should I say kitty) FP

--Laveol (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it is not he, but she after all :)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose dark. --Snek01 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LuxioApustua.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2009 at 23:51:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

**English:** (missing text)
The *aizkolari* (axe-man) nicknamed *Luxia* ("long one") on a trunk-cutting bet. Year 1949, Deba, Gipuzkoa (Basque Country). The tree on the image was cut by a group in Nabarniz, Biscay, Basque Country and it's 2,1 meters tall. Joan Joxe *Luxia* Narbaiz ("*Long* Joan Joxe Narbaiz") accepted a bet of 50.000 pesetas if he was able to cut it. Finally, due to the extreme hotness he couldn't do it. *Luxia* was from Azkoitia.
**Euskara:** (missing text)
Luxia aizkolaria Airoko-Pagoaren ebaketa erronkan zehar. 1949. urtea, Deba, Gipuzkoa. Irudiko zuhaitza Bizkaiko Nabarniz udalerriko koadrila batek bota berria zuen. Pagoak 2 metro eta 10 zentimetroko diametroa zuen. Ebakitzeko erronka Debako Joan Joxe Luxia Narbaizek onartu zuen, alde banatatik garaiko 50.000 pezeta gurutzatu zirelarik. Azkenik bero jasanezina zela eta, Luxiak amore eman eta lehia bertan behera utzi zuen. Luxia Azkoitiakoa zen.

Info created by Indalecio Ojanguren - uploaded by Akerbeltz - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Theklan (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - needs lots of restoration work and neither the composition nor image quality are sufficient - Peripitus (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Too small, JGP-artefacts, needs restoration. --kallerna 11:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info It's a quite old image and maybe unique. Restoration can be easily done and what you call JPG artifact it's original image grain. -Theklan (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are JPG-artifacts for sure. —kallerna™ 11:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great historical end ethnological value.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--An13sa (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Well, it certainly is a high value documentary photograph, and a beautiful one. Unfortunately, the file is not of enough quality. Jpeg artifacts come from unskillful handling of the scanned image. The photograph was originally taken on a negative plate large enough to rule out any grain we can talk about. Although the latter I cannot be proven unless proper quality rescan is done. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Orereta (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All that information about the image that you get when hovering the image should really also be on the image page itself. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose FPX would apply here. The image was saved in Photoshop with quality 4/12 "low" while the guidelines recommend 95% or 11/12. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo is valuable ethnographic and strong dramatic, reminds me the old documentaries of Robert J. Flaherty. -- Euskalduna 0:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MurexPecten.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2009 at 01:12:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An apertural view of the shell of Murex pecten.

Info created by Didier Descouens Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Didier Descouens Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Snek01 -- Snek01 (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Encyclopedic and made in quality. -- Snek01 (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Snek01. Tiptoety ^talk 01:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AM (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Beautiful![reply]
Support--Böhringer (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Nikopol (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:SydneyUniversity WesleyCollege.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2009 at 04:46:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. -- 99of9 (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good resolution, cool composition. Tiptoety ^talk 06:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Composition is awkward, imho. I believe that for architectural pictures, one of the following has to be chosen : EITHER a perspective-corrected view, where the strait lines are shown as straight as possible, and as parallel as possible ; OR a "fish-eye" view, which can be stunning for very large buildings or collections of buildings, where all the horizontals end up being shaped like sine waves. This picture sits uncomfortably in between and looks tilted and/or crooked. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure you've noted that the left and right wings of the building are different which explains any asymmetry you see. I tried a few projections and I believe this is best: all verticals are vertical, and the building base is at eye height and hence is horizontal, the higher horizontals do become curved - but that is necessary to bring the height of the chapel into the frame. I find fish-eye almost unrecognizeable. --99of9 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the chapel vs. the other wing on the right hand side : I completely agree that the chapel is both higher and longer than the other wing. If you're talking about the central wing itself : I'd think that it is pretty symetrical, with all due respect to the age of the building. Thus, the roofline sloping more on the left than on the right is surprising. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Support If composition could be improved, it will be great, but I am OK with that one too.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wide angle distortion, blown whites, flat lighting. There's a shot here; this doesn't quite capture it. Durova (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Durova --Pudelek (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tree of Life 2009 large.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2009 at 03:48:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alan1411 - uploaded by Alan1411 - nominated by Alan1411 -- Alan1411 (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alan1411 (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks very nice, but diagrams should always be SVG for obvious reasons (resolution independence, localization, file size). -- JovanCormac 07:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wow, really great job, but Jovan is right, it must be SVG. --Phyrexian (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the positive feedback. I'm now working on an SVG version of this image. I'm happy if this PNG version is declined FI status. --Alan1411 (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. I hope that somebody will translate it into Russian. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree this is what SVG is for. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kanchenjunga India.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2009 at 07:15:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aaron Ostrovsky - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Tseno Maximov
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too noisy IMO. —kallerna™ 14:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:P1160243 Calopteryx splendens.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2009 at 09:40:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 09:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 09:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW , really --Cesco77 (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 11:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks overprocessed or having some compression artifacts. And I do not fancy the leg in front of the eye.--Korall (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice macro IMO --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I don't think the quality is bad at all. --Aqwis (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately I have to agree with kallerna and Korall. It's quite obvious in the upper part of the twig, for example. --NEURO ^⇌ 20:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imagem ruim. RmSilva ^{pode falar!} 10:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, not so nice quality. You have real good talents. Consider getting an SLR and a macro lens. --Muhammad (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wadi Rum BW 16.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2009 at 07:27:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull centered composition. Otherwise good. —kallerna™ 11:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but what a place!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image - conveys the scale well. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For some reason, the photo looks like it was taken with a 1960s camera. I was sure that was the case before looking at the date (2009). This is certainly interesting, but quality concerns are big, and since it isn't "historical" after all I don't see a mitigating reason. -- JovanCormac 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose per issues with color noted above. This definitely has encyclopedic value as it conveys a) the scale of the place as effectively for someone like myself who's been there as for someone who hasn't and b) it shows the way most people commonly visit it, in 4WD pickup trucks driven by Bedouins. And it's also a great photo of Jabal Rum, the second-highest mountain in Jordan. However, again from personal experience, I know just how brilliant the colors there can be, and I've got some pics that I hope to make FPC candidates eventually myself. This does not fully convey that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Danny Lee Wynter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2009 at 16:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Johan Persson. - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Barun (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient DOF (e.g. back eye blurry), and a bit noisy (see neck). --99of9 (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vitrail Notre-Dame de Paris 191208 04 Fuite en Egypte.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2009 at 06:29:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Vassil - uploaded by Vassil - nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I came across this while organizing stained glass categories. These photos are hard to get right, and this looks right to me. -- 99of9 (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Orsay Lover (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportBasik07 (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bubo bubo -Dunrobin Castle -Scotland-8a.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2009 at 18:34:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jack Spellingbacon - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice owl, but the composition and the background do not look good IMO. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oh dear, what one could do with that background and light. --Ernie (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie, IMO it is better to discuss the image only. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice picture, but too boring composition for a FP. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. The standards on commons are higher than I expected. I hope to find a more suitable photograph. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Larus delawarensis20.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 04:28:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Basar - uploaded by Basar - nominated by Basar -- Basar (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown whites. -- JovanCormac 09:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jovan --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basar (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:360-degree Panorama of the Southern Sky.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 12:54:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO/H.H. Heyer - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Milky Way arches across this 360-degree panorama of the night sky above the Paranal platform, home of ESO’s Very Large Telescope. The image was made from 37 individual frames with a total exposure time of about 30 minutes, taken in the early morning hours.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ignoring the unavoidable noise, it is a valuable picture. Please add the geolocation template. --Alex:D (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added geotag Originalwana (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, noisy, but what a view!--Mbz1 (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very noisy, but I think that this is the best they can do. —kallerna™ 15:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great view --ianaré (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall quality is quite low at full res, but obviously this is an amazing picture. -- JovanCormac 09:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marvellous -- MJJR (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noisy, but awesome! (It would be interesting to see the camera settings.) --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lookatthis (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Belgian F-16 Radom cleaned denoised brightened.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2009 at 13:34:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow (User:Airwolf) and Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info If you have the impression that this picture has already been nominated, you're right. That nomination, however, was stopped on the 5th day as the corresponding rule imposes, however, this was due to the fact that comments were made about how the image should be improved. Obviously, in such a situation no civil user would cast a vote, since the image thay were currently seeing was just temporary and awaiting improvement. Thus, I am renominating the image, and so as to make up for any formal reservations that could be made, I am nominating two alternatives of the same picture. Which is better, I don't know. You tell me.
Info Previous nomination
Comment What I like about it most is the diagonal composition (a rarity in aircraft photography) and the shadows which prevent a feeling of flatness.
Support -- Wolf (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A good and illustrative picture and no doubt better than the very first nomination. However the shadows are harsh and the image looks like the jet had already left the image (nose closer to the picture border than the tail). There are plenty of holes underneath the wings where naturally weapons and tanks would be. Sadly we can't see them. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to see an airshow with planes flying around fully armed Wolf (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No, especially with their propensity to fly over packed crowds for long periods of time. Airshow crashes are already dangerous enough without adding in live bullets, explosives and extra fuel. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment In every civilized country such a thing - I mean flying over people - is generally forbidden, and there's always a distance, like a safety zone, between the crowd and the flying area. Wolf (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support Wolf (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should I have said "Weak support, but support" :) BTW jokes aside, it will be better if you are to change your vote on my nomination to just "oppose" in order not confuse the bot.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot will know what to do. It only cares about the {{oppose| part, all after the | is of no importance to him (her? it?) Wolf (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The bot does not count votes for images where alternates are available. For all images there is a manual review process to confirm the vote counting. Everyone can review a closed nomination. Don't change the order of the parameters and don't delete empty parameters since the bot is confused otherwise. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Much improved,love the composition - Peripitus (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ~ R.T.G 23:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Well done! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version is way better -- Nikopol (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Wolf (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Belgian F-16 Radom.JPG

File:Evergreen near Dobbiaco.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 14:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the while balance looks wrong here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are right, I changed the version --Llorenzi (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hazy blue hour in Grand Canyon.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 20:48:34 (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) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wonderful & useful. Takabeg (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very nice; I like the colors. Schnobby --Schnobby (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition! —kallerna™ 12:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple and good. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the windows xp sample image look --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The silhouette of a person on the ridge would make this perfect but the image is great as it is - Peripitus (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grand colors. Please specify the location more precisely, either by giving the name of the point it was photographed from or by adding a {{Location}} template. Thanks. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess the scene like that could be seen only once in a blue Moon :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hurricane Isabel eye from ISS (edit 1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2009 at 23:44:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA astronaut Ed Lu - edited and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this whilst browsing the gallery our talented Tasmanian colleague, Noodle snacks. I think it's a wonderful shot, capturing the heart of hurricane. It looks very peaceful from up here, but that belies the fury down below. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice to not be in that - Peripitus (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks really cool. -- JovanCormac 08:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, poor quality. —kallerna™ 10:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support definitely --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very cool. Tiptoety ^talk 01:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I nominated this successfully over at enwiki, so obviously I think it's good :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love to see the layered clouds and the eddies --Ikiwaner (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really can't claim that I did a lot of work to this. From memory it was only a few minutes of clicking buttons. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tidepools in Santa Cruz at low tide.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2009 at 18:39:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info It requires a really low (negative) tide to take an image like the nominated one. Such low tide happens only few times per year during day hours.
- I don't think the tide has any preference for the night... I would say that such low tides happen, in average, as often during the day as during the night. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe you are mistaken. To take such image the tide should be at least -.9 feet. Please take a look at that tide table You will see that there were 8 tides as low as I needed in December. Only three tides out of those 8 were at more or less good time. The tides that happen after 4 p.m.are not good, the sun is way too low for taking images. The sun sets at around 5 p.m. in December in San Francisco. Now please look at June month. You will see June had 10 tides that were low enough, from which only 2 were during day hours.The sun rises at around 6 a.m. in San Francisco in June. Wind and waves might also prevent one from taking such an image.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tides in Fundy Bay in Canada range from 17 meters to 22 meters!! ~ R.T.G 23:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support would be a nice wall picture in a museum ~ R.T.G 23:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support очень понравилось фото! Very nice! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Packed with interesting stuff. --99of9 (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nishi tribal lightened.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2009 at 11:44:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Doniv79 - uploaded by Andreyostr - nominated by Erin Silversmith -- Silversmith Hewwo 11:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Silversmith Hewwo 11:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one need description. —kallerna™ 12:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Silversmith Hewwo 14:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

. —kallerna™ 18:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Böhringer (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Nikopol (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Vortex-street-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2009 at 23:59:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by MatthiasKabel - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to admit, my time thus far on Commons has broadened my scope of interest quite considerably. Pictures like these are amazingly interesting.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEURO ^⇌ 09:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 11:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AM (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though resolution could be higher. -- JovanCormac 12:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just uploaded another version with a bit higher resolution. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maria Island Seascape 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2009 at 06:54:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Jacopo Werther (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question is that water ?? GerardM (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - SUPER --Pudelek (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Like looking into the eternity! Schnobby Schnobby (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant idea on the exposure time. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Inside Balconies Cave 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 18:17:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good composition. Could you add more info about what was cloned in the retouched tag? A Location tag would also be appreciated. Thanks --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The cloned part looks far too unnatural IMO. —kallerna™ 10:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except you would not have known, if I did not say :)

--Mbz1 (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bamberg Obere Bruecke 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2009 at 14:26:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting and odd, but far from featurable both in quality and composition. -- JovanCormac 15:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As JovanCormac. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sympetrum vulgatum portrait.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2009 at 16:23:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Male Sympetrum vulgatum. Everything by Korall -- Korall (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colours and composition. --99of9 (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. inisheer (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Inisheer. Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its totally unprocessed (except for crop) so I could sharpen. It adds some contrast to the texture of the eye and also some noise. But Im not used to seeing them like that so I dont fancy it. --Korall (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not a matter of post-processing, it is a matter of not shooting an insect at 1/40 second. Artificial sharpening only destroys details. inisheer (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the insect or the camera was resting on something less sturdy I woudnt have tried 1/40. If I cant shoot att f16 I dont know how to get sufficient DOF for a portrait to be interesting to look at. Here is a f/11 1/125s try. I prefer the f/32 try to that. I just think there is too little in focus there to be interesting to look at when under f/11, and the shadows too hard in full sunshine. At the moment I didnt have an external flash and I dont think the built-in flash would have helped much. I am very open for any suggestions of how to improve in the future. Please let me know. It might also be the cheap closeup-lens I used in front of the macro lens that ruins it. --Korall (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tidepools at Pillar Point at low tide.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2009 at 21:32:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks too different from the main candidate that I am not sure why we should have to pick one of them. /Daniel78 (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. That image was taken in an absolutely different place. Would you like me to take it off all together or to re-nominate it on its own?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would make more sense to me :) /Daniel78 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No more alternative, but a nomination on its own.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good to see something a little abstract --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lighting appears inconsistent, it looks exactly right at the bottom, but the middle has a greyish haze or something. --99of9 (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The water makes colors brighter. Above the water there was only fog.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crepuscular rays and Dead trees at Mammoth Hot Springs.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2009 at 00:12:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another wonderful picture from our resident master of crepuscular craftswomanship. It's quite an out of this world setting.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep, I immediately thought that it was Mila's work when I saw the crepuscular rays. The resolution is lower than I would like, but it's otherwise an excellent image. —Notyourbroom (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Really very nice! Schnobby --Schnobby (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The image was used at Spaceweather.com. Thank you, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice work - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEURO ^⇌ 09:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 11:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support super colours --Böhringer (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose <-- only until you fix the reddish CA on the branches at the top right. --99of9 (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot do it. The original image got lost, when I crashed my hard drive, and to correct this one means to loose quality. So I guess your oppose to stay--Mbz1 (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Weak support, but support ). Wolf (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support отлично! Nice rays --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikopol (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautifull picture ! Minimus Symplex (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grand composition. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great atmosphere and lighting. However it looks like leaning to the right a bit. --Ikiwaner (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Randolph Caldecott illustration2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2009 at 05:53:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Randolph Caldecott - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Randolph Caldecott illustration.jpg -- Durova (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Children's book illustration published on laid paper, 1887.
Support -- Durova (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Gorgeous! --Silversmith Hewwo 10:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great restoration, though resolution is on the low side. -- JovanCormac 09:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good restoration! Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically good, but I don't see it as "in some way special" ("wow factor" is not used anymore?) --Eusebius (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bruno Senna 2006 Australian Grand Prix-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2009 at 13:46:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Windsok - uploaded by Windsok - nominated by Windsok -- Windsok 13:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Windsok 13:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Too small. --kallerna 15:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I give my ~~{Support|conditional support}~~ providing that the image is returned to its original state, in which it was 2,23 MPx. Otherwise, I shall change my vote to oppose. Wolf (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the original is better than the reduced versions. --Relic38 (

talk) 04:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your current state is oppose please use the oppose template, this conditional statement would make the bot count wrong and it would be quite easy for a human reviewer to miss that you actually mean oppose. /Daniel78 (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. If I do change my vote, than the bot will stop the vote on the fifth day. Wolf (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But as it stands now the image should really be closed on the fifth day as you are currently opposing. Seems strange to add extra time because you are hoping for a change. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, hell, if the author and nominator doesn't care, why should I care? Wolf (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose resolution too low otherwise nice panning shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dusky Moorhen Water Lilies.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2009 at 09:06:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom -- 99of9 (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, I do think it is one of our best shots of birds on water.--Korall (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks delicious Wolf (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition, oversaturated colours. inisheer (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, composition. There's just too much stuff 4 me. —kallerna™ 11:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Kallerna --AngMoKio (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Per the suggestions above that there is too much going on, I'm providing a cropped alternative with a closer portrait of the main subject and less background. See what you think.
Support as nom. --99of9 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Dusky_Moorhen_Water_Lilies.jpg

File:Sen. Hillary Clinton 2007 denoise.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2009 at 18:31:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Raeky (Derivative work) - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton AKA Hilldawg.

Warning: May remind you of Palpatine.

Support -- Barun (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just because of that Palpatine-comment. —kallerna™ 11:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support She does resemble Palpatine a little, though only after he was injured by Windu. -- JovanCormac 12:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - camera was set too low.--Avala (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Palpatine ? Takabeg (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Isn't making the model look either natural or good an important part of good portrait photography? --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Matti. --99of9 (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose. I don't see why we need to have that space on the right. Why not crop in a bit? (And as for Palpatine, as long as we have the current pope it's pointless to compare any other public figures to him. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99. Wolf (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible earring. --Karel (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Matti, also light not too pleasant --Leafnode✉ 11:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coat of arms of Nova Scotia.svg

File:Figure-Animation2.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 04:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An rotation about a 3D-Figure showing the difference between motion blur (left) and direct rendering. Modelled and rendered in Blender 2.49. Animated with 25 fps an a stopping sequence to make the difference more visible.

Info created by Niabot - uploaded by Niabot - nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niabot (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. -- 99of9 (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good work. Please keep up.--Korall (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for 2 reasons: First, the side-by-side placement gives the impression that this is a stereogram (which is not the case, therefore one-above-the-other placement would be less confusing); second, I don't see why a scantily-clad anime figure is used here rather than a "blank" human shape (or even an animal). -- JovanCormac 12:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know a Commons' user who'd say: objectification of women :) Indeed, if the images are places one above the other, I'll be happy to support. As for the figure used, I don't really care. Wolf (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't go so far as to say that this image objectifies women. But the fact is that the "model" seems oddly out of place in an animation designed to illustrate a technical concept. -- JovanCormac 09:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No? You'll see for yourself when this gets promoted and you-know-who sees this on the main page. :) Wolf (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would love to see this turned into a rotating stereogram (top: blurred, bottom, not blurred) :) G.A.S 13:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per the above. Would full support a vertically stacked image and would strong support a hunky guy in Speedos. ;) Durova (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the image stop after full rotation? The motion blur can't be seen if it's a still image... and I don't see any purpose of stopping the rotation. Support --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Vanity Fair June 1914b.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 04:34:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ethel McClellen Plummer - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Vanity Fair June 1914.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Cover art for Vanity Fair magazine, June 1914.
Support -- Durova (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- nice GerardM (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good job. Takabeg (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Luca Toni Bayern.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2009 at 18:20:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tsutomu Takasu - uploaded by Simo82 - nominated by Sidik iz PTU -- Sidik iz PTU (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sidik iz PTU (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution too low, left hand unsharp --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is below the 2Mpx requirements (0.96Mpx).

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

Diti the penguin — 03:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Latuff nazi camp 2.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 20:38:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by en:Carlos Latuff - gif version uploaded by Pieter Kuiper, converted to png and uploaded by Liftarn, - nominated by Pieter Kuiper -- Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of Latuff's more accomplished cartoons, awarded 2nd prize at an international contest, notable in its own right as the subject of controversy. -- Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no problem with it being on the featured list, but I think we should generally not feature current propaganda images on the front page. - Jmabel ! talk 04:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh? Propaganda? :o Diti the penguin — 07:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hanay (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Diti the penguin — 07:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very neat illustration, I which I had this level! Diti the penguin — 07:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ranbar (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please state a reason for opposing as a courtesy to the nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the illustration is neither "notable in its own right", nor "of high artistic merit", "of high historic merit" or "of high illustrative merit" (see "Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents" under "Commons:Featured picture candidates->Formal things"). --Kjetil_r 07:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very politically incorrect (and wrong, but that's an opinion). Tomer A. 07:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality scan of a very interesting and controversially famous cartoon. -- JovanCormac 07:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insulting the memory of the 6 million murdered in the Holocaust will cause a lot of damage to this project. It is enough that this garbage is in commons, but to put in the main page? How dare you? Unfortunately I can'y say that I'm surprised considering the nominator. Indeed, it is a very sad day for commons. Kooritza (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Yoavd (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --רוליג (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why? Let me tell you why, because that image is not only propaganda, it is propoganda of hate, but yet it is not even added to category "propaganda". Why it is propaganda? There's absolutely nothing that let one to compare the wire of the concentration camps of The Holocaust and West Bank security fence. The former was built to prevent innocent victims from getting out, the latter was built to prevent terrorists from entering in. that cartoon is highly offencive to many people, who lost relatives in the w:The_Holocaust, who are w:The Holocaust survivors.Could you imagine featuring Muhammad cartoons? Why that man in cartoon is crying? He probably cries because he just lost a son, who committed homicide bombing inside Israel. One of the biggest reasons for nominating that was retaliation to me personally. And besides technical quality of that is absolutely horrible. What in the world is sticking out of the man mouth (white from one side, and red from the other)? BTW no normal cartoonist and/or painter will paint his name in the very midlle of his work--Mbz1 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - against politicization of the commons. Deror avi (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Mila and Kooritza. And per myself, because myself feels personally insulted by what this drawing claims to represent. Wolf (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Polemic, I liked!--Econt (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This picture shouldn't get nominated here. This topic is far too controversial. Religious conflicts will never get solved and mostly (like in this conflict too) both sides act inhuman. "Imagine there's no countries - It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too" - John Lennon Imagine --AngMoKio (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should have never been nominated here, but I do not agree that conflict is "religious". It is not about religion for Jews, it is about surviving. And besides look at the other parts of the world. Don't you see what's going on around? If we do not stop terrorism now, in few years, we well end up building security fences around our own countries to prevent terrorists from killing our own kids.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - propaganda or not, somehow I quite doubt if it follows the quality guidelines. As for the propaganda... gee... as far as I know, the Hamas rules in Gaza strip, and if there are still refugee camps there, it's because they serve their intentions... --Yuval Y § Chat § 10:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose גוונא (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you are really sure that you are not a socket puppet? --AngMoKio (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what about you? Kooritza (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are funny. I have more than just 2 edits on this nomination. Furthermore i was not talking about you. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

גוונא is not a sock, but has many contributions on hewp; probably there was some canvassing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Issue solved then. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this should be announced on arwp and fawp for balance? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the cartoon is even more offencive because quite a few prominent Palestinians helped nazi to prosecute the Jews during the war--Mbz1 (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is unbelievable. per Kooritza and Tomer A. Ravit (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this propaganda is outside of commons' scope, promoting it shows very poor judgement. Odedee (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 14 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. SNOW closure, no realistic chance of being featured. Nomination very questionable in the context of Pieter Kuiper's other recent edits. Adambro (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alberi e crocefisso a Dobbiaco.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 14:12:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I only just noticed, but this is reminiscent of the symmetry and desaturation of Golgotha. Also, nice colours on the tree. --99of9 (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Non mi piace troppo la composizione, ma i colori sono fantastici :-) I don't like so much the compsition, but I love the colours of this pic :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. If the crucifix is the subject, it is not well exposed. --Leafnode✉ 11:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crucifix is only a part of the picture. The subject of this image is the composition of crucifix plus the trees (with beautiful red coulors) immerse in the white novel snow.--Llorenzi (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Civil War steeplechase2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2009 at 06:13:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Edwin Forbes - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Civil War steeplechase.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Steeplechase race in celebration of Saint Patrick's Day among the Irish Brigade of the Army of the Potomac during the American Civil War, 17 March 1863.
Support -- Durova (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This time I don't think you've chopped enough off! Could you remove the right border, since none of the other borders are showing? --99of9 (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to hit save before the second upload. Should be fixed now. If the thumbnail hasn't updated, just click in. :) Durova (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK. OK. OK. Takabeg (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Devil's Golf Course in Death Valley NP.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 16:32:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Devil's Golf Course is a large salt pan in Death Valley National Park, with a rough surface formed of large salt crystals. It was named after a line in a 1934 w:National Park Service guide book to Death Valley, which stated that "only the devil could play golf" on its surface.
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Oppose alternative. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extra, good image, but not for FP. --Karel (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, nothing extra just some salt crystals surrounded by multicolored volcanic hills in natural environment :) --Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ausgezeichnetes Bild! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual and striking scene, well executed. --99of9 (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp, unpleasant curve of salt field's border --Leafnode✉ 12:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alternative[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support support too --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO better --Leafnode✉ 12:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Devil's Golf Course in Death Valley NP.jpg

File:Dirt road in winter.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 19:27:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Juliancolton (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite a lot of chromatic aberration. Could you reduce it? —kallerna™ 12:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original ... it just looks more realistic than the edit to me. —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version is fine with me too.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition isn't IMO that good. —kallerna™ 15:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what's wrong with the composition? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo just isn't extraordinary IMO. You could have tried some other perspective and it's too centered. For instance, this one is from same kind of place, but the composition is more striking IMO. —kallerna™ 15:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Though I like the other one this is good too. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having lived through this same weekend storm, in the same region as nominator, I like the mood in this one better. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I thought a long time about it, but in the end I have to agree with Kallerna. I believe that the atmosphere was great, but I think it would have to be a bit more extraordinary for a FP. Sorry. Nikopol (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what more one would want. This is probably the best shot I could have gotten of this scene in its natural state, without trying to achieve some all-too-common artificial composition that reduces the image's educational value. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I would have been very hard to come up with a better composition for that place. But I´m not shure whether every scene existing, though perhaps atmospheric in real life and of educational value, can be captured in a photo worth beeing elected FP. IMO this is a well-made photo of "a rural dirt road after a bout of snowfall", but lacking a bit on the “wow factor” a FP should have. Nikopol (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's fair then. Thanks for participating. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just a way. --Karel (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? I don't understand, could you please clarify? (Sorry if this comes across as badgering, I'm just interested in improving for future shots. :)) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice, but not enough wow for me. (P.S. I think the previous voter could be translated as "Just a road".) --99of9 (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo, but there needs to be an exceptionally good composition to generate wow on an everyday subject. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing particularly outstanding --Leafnode✉ 11:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit 1[edit]

Support Great atmosphere!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice for me --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. —kallerna™ 15:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per kallerna. --Ernie (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not enough wow for me. --99of9 (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment above --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as with original --Leafnode✉ 11:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:El Golfo-Lanzarote.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 22:45:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by garrondo - uploaded by garrondo - nominated by garrondo -- Garrondo (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Garrondo (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Beautiful place, but overexposed sky. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would like to support, as it is really beautiful photo, but it's too noisy and the sky is bit overexposed. —kallerna™ 10:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed sky, lighting could be better --Leafnode✉ 11:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johannes Honterus - Denkmal in Kronstadt.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 21:05:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Quality image, nice statue, but - sorry - not extraordinary IMO. --MattiPaavola (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kingswear and the Dart s1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 17:32:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This images shows the village of Kingswear which lies opposite the town of Dartmouth across the river Dart. The lowest bridging point on the Dart is some way upstream and without the ferries (on is shown in the image) between Dartmouth and Kingswear there would be a journey of at least thirty minutes to get from one side to the other. Both places have considerable historic interest going back over 1000 years. Both also have castles which were used to defend the river (one can be seen and there is a pointer to the location of the other one). The Pilgrim Fathers put in to Dartmouth before setting sail in 1620. This is a stitched image made up from three individual images.
Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the image is badly tilted; a ~1.33 deg counter-clockwise rotation is necessary to fix this. --Aqwis (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully fixed (rotated by 1.33 deg). I'll put the notes back on as soon as I can. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support An amazing scenery with a high EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. Even the locations of the four boats add to the balance of the composition. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although the image notes seem slightly (substantially?) misplaced? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are ok to me? Is it all of them? More info would be good, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of them at least with Firefox 3.5.5. -MattiPaavola (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Weird - I am using FF 3.5.5. When I placed them they looked a little odd but show in the right place for me. I think I'll delete them and try again but I'm just going out now so it will be later. And follow up - cache issue maybe. I cleared it and sure enough the notes were very badly placed :(. Anyway - hopefully fixed now. Thanks for the feedback --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep, all in order now. Thanks for taking care of that. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Takabeg (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image of English coast. Daniel Case (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful --Phyrexian (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mongolian Lama.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 09:24:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Schnobby (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little unsharp at full size, also a little noisy, but I really like it. --Moise Nicu (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – The colors are a bit off. --Ernie (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No problem. I'll reduce the colors. Schnobby (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great portrait! --Leafnode✉ 11:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Seal Rock from Cliff House.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2009 at 04:36:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rocks, rocks, rocks... Would you finally take some photos of airplanes or helicopters or... anything more mobile than rocks? :) Wolf (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - OK, but I still remove the photographer from the shot . It is not difficult in this case.- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer this one (yes I know, it's not from the same place), and IMO this bring nothing new to the genre. —kallerna™ 15:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one you mentioned is not only from the same place, but it shows absolutely different rocks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I don´t know... I love the lit rocks and the blurred water in the foreground. Also, the sky is great. But above the center of the image, the water lies in the shadows (of a rock out of view?). It´s somehow deranging me, as if the image was cut in two there. Nikopol (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colors and for this reason I would prefer this one in comparison to the alternative below. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very good. --Aqwis (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture of the waves. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The building is tilted. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As MattiPaavola --Phyrexian (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilt, composition --Leafnode✉ 11:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Seal Rock from Cliff House.jpg

File:Sheikh-Lotf-Allah mosque wall and ceiling 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 17:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nikopol - uploaded by Nikopol - nominated by Nikopol -- Nikopol (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikopol (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The image is a panorama out of two images which I had to take without a tripod, thus I had to correct the result of the photomerge a little. -- Nikopol (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it needs a little rotation to make it symmetric. --99of9 (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo as is --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love islamic calligraphy, but overall quality just doesn't amaze me here. The image is blurry throughout at full res and there is some CA visible around the windows as well. -- JovanCormac 09:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info Please note: This is a very large dome. I had to dicide on what spot to focus. If you look at the tilework a bit above the center of the image, you will see it´s perfectly sharp. Given the circumstances, I was very pleased with the level of detail my Pentax k10d produced on the overall image. -- Nikopol (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. Thanks... --.ds m. 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely image and certainly featurable to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dazzling detail where you would want it. A net plus. Would make a great desktop. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sossusvlei.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 13:32:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Tsauchab river ends in the desert. -- Ikiwaner (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow! Rare place for me --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The composition and tones are very good. --MattiPaavola (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Durova (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful location. --99of9 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Consider changing your licence. —kallerna™ 10:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is how red deserts should look. Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful --Phyrexian (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 11:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Steeplechase2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2009 at 01:13:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by US Army Signal Corps - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Steeplechase.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info US Army training exercises at Camp Edwards, Massachusetts, circa 1942.
Support -- Durova (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yay, war propaganda! Wolf (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great one. -- JovanCormac 09:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Successful capture of the motion. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Where have you been, soldier?" "Training, sir!" "What kind of training?" "AAAAAAaaaaAAAArmy training, sir!". Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feaured comment! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like the subject, but rare and very good shot... --Phyrexian (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Suvanto 2009-10-02 02.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 19:54:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MattiPaavola - uploaded by MattiPaavola - nominated by MattiPaavola -- MattiPaavola (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Suvanto is one of the very few villages in Lapland, Finland that wasn't destroyed during WWII.
Support -- MattiPaavola (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This composition would make a great painting too :). --99of9 (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hyvää ! Takabeg (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Could be more detailed and crisp but I love minimal compositions -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it. --Eusebius (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thomas Bresson - Fort Lachaux-1 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 10:44:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, artificial colors, plus composition and scene are not outstanding in my opinion Nikopol (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -tones, CA --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, colors, CA --Leafnode✉ 11:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 10:42:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, artificial colors and image quality issues Nikopol (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Artificial colors and the whole thing looks a bit blurry or grainy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Overexposed or oversaturated, CA --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if colors weren't wrong, there's just no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colors, CA, composition --Leafnode✉ 11:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yu Garden in Shanghai.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 13:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Schnobby (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the idea of showing modern and old culture is really good but there are some technical problems. The foreground is too dark while the background is too bright. Unfortunately you need some kind of HDR technique to make such a pic. --AngMoKio (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, poor quality. —kallerna™ 10:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Multiple issues. --99of9 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love it, but poor quality... --Phyrexian (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose messy composition, poor colors --Leafnode✉ 11:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is OK but the composition is distracting with many objects in the foreground. --Korman (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Little Red Lighthouse on a dark day.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 07:39:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by b k - uploaded by JotaCartas - nominated by JotaCartas -- JotaCartas (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JotaCartas (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is far below the 2Mpx requirements.

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

--Eusebius (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nanjing Road, Shanghai.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 10:00:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Schnobby (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. —kallerna™ 10:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nights are dark. Even in Shanghai. Schnobby (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna. The composition is fine, but you'd need HDR here. Wolf (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I actually like this picture very much. However, it needs a gentle denoise and also a rotation/perspective correction to fix the skewed looking crop on the left. Do that and I will support. -- JovanCormac 16:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dark, some bushes (?) in the center --Leafnode✉ 11:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Schnobby (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lizard in Ibiza.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2009 at 12:26:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Schnobby (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs a denoise (or maybe those are JPEG artifacts - <1 MB for 4 Mpix is a little low). -- JovanCormac 15:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lula e operários.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2009 at 17:47:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ricardo Stuckert/PR - uploaded by Richard Melo da Silva - nominated by Richard Melo da Silva -- RmSilva ^{pode falar!} 17:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RmSilva ^{pode falar!} 17:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is an interesting image. It does have some problems like dust spots, some noise, and the composition is not complete IMO, yet tthe image is interesting, and unusual enough to be considered.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is not very good (noise and CA), the composition does not feel very good either with both the "towers" cut off and part of the bottom banner. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel78 + burnt. —kallerna™ 10:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lacks that "wow" factor, plus it feels like an advertisement. Tiptoety ^talk 02:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Composition, perspective and CA/oversharpening. --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALTERNATIVE 1[edit]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Wolf (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aloe dichotoma -Keetmanshoop, Namibia-21Aug2009-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 02:46:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Le Grand Portage -modified and uploaded by Fletcher - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technical perfection. -- JovanCormac 16:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok. —kallerna™ 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow, impressive ! Ceridwen (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent foto. Nice colours too. --Korman (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent lighting and convincing composition. Denoising is much too strong so e.g. the sky looks like plastic. However the differences are only visible at big enlargements. --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Clonfert Cathedral Mermaid 2009 09 17.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2009 at 22:37:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by AFBorchert -- AFBorchert (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AFBorchert (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is one of those rare images that are not only of a great quality, but also have a fascinating story to tell. When I first saw the image on QI I was rather surprised that a mermaid (half-naked female :) ) was carved at the chancel arch of the Cathedral. So I asked about the story behind the image, and here is the story. More information could be found in the blog.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lovely image and of good value to the project, thanks for offering it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Correct photo but no more than that -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is of a very rare carving with an amazing story behind it. The image is of a great quality and a great EV. That's why may I please ask you to clarify your oppose reason? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose harsh light --Leafnode✉ 11:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Utricularia calycifida - front.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2009 at 01:23:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Petr Dlouhý - uploaded by Petr Dlouhý - nominated by Petr Dlouhý -- Petr Dlouhý (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Flower of carnivorous Utricularia calycifida (en) from front.
Info Size of the flower is about 0.5cm (macro)
Support -- Petr Dlouhý (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hot pixels on the background. Distracting flare on the bottom right corner. Could be sharper. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Flare and hot pixels can be edited, but did you take into account size of the flower, when talking about sharpness?
Oppose Noisy. —kallerna™ 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both versions. The shoots behind the flower are out of focus. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit[edit]

Neutral Thanks for removing the hot pixels. I would still prefer deeper DOF (which in this difficult tiny case might need special macro equipment, unfortunately). Therefore, neutral. --MattiPaavola (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could use focus stacking without any special equipment (well except a fixed camera position). /Daniel78 (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I didn't learn it yet (but I am planning it). I didn't notice, that use of stacking is standard for FP macros (in fact I didn't see any such image, when quickly paging trhough FP). Anyway, thanks for your comments, I will try to do my macros better.--212.24.152.56 06:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arquebus img 0410.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 15:13:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Firing of an arquebus during the Geneva Escalade of 2009. The lock has just ignited the power in the touch hole and the shot is about to go off, amidst the smoke caused by neighbouring arquebusers.
Oppose Weak composition and crop. -- JovanCormac 15:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, crop, cloud covering most of the picture --Leafnode✉ 11:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not agreed about the smoke: it covers less than half of the photograph, and it is a part of the point.

I would be interested to hear more about the composition. If I had to formulate criticism myself, I would have said that the background is messy and distracting, but I might not use the term "composition" for this. Rama (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By 'composition' I meant mostly background. About smoke - it would be fine if it didn't cover the shooter, as he is the main object of this photograph. --Leafnode✉ 12:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Wolf (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blitze IMGP6376 wp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 12:11:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Smial - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's not too much I can say about this lovely piece that the picture itself doesn't already say for me. :P
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting :). --99of9 (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikopol (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good! --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Toll! --Simonizer (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Confused: I wasn't aware there was a fee to nominate an image. When was that introduced? :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info "Toll" is a German word meaning "great", "fantastic", ... -- H005 15:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I dream of being able to take pictures like this...excellent lightning picture with great coloring. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is no sorcery. You must be patient. Then patient. And a bit weather proof. Then again patient. And you need a tripod. And a cable release, and a camera, that supports full manual control. And everytime, when you close the shutter, you need to be patient again, as the dark frame substraction needs again 60 seconds (same as the real exposure time), before you can take the next shot. And I grant you: Exactly in these 60 seconds at minimum 10 much better flashes will happen. Then you need some chocolate to calm down. And never point the camera to a different direction. If you turn right, the next gigantic flash will come down to the left and vice versa :-) -- smial (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Support - Of course. An amazing shot. Tiptoety ^talk 07:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 11:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the contrast between the sharp, jagged lightning and the smooth, subtle clouds. Daniel Case (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! --Leviathan (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support *g* --Böhringer (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coulées Basaltiques at Jaujac 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2009 at 14:59:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Massif Central in France is a volcanic region with interesting features in many areas. The whole area is roughly a quarter of the area of France. This image is from the Ardèche department and is not as well known as some areas. Basalt columns such as these are a remarkable feature of volcanic activity. Jaujac has one of the youngest extinct volcanos in Europe and the "coupe de Jaujac" is quite well known though all the articles I've found are in French.
Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great image of the amazing example of Nature at work! Very interesting, thank you for the additional information.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting, sharpness could be better --Leafnode✉ 11:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good and illustrative image but no wow factor. I don't like the image aspect ratio which is too tall imo. --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Romanian Patriarchal Cathedral - external mosaics.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2009 at 14:41:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadows --Leafnode✉ 11:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the shadows... The mosaics are permanently placed there. A better photo can be taken. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:After the war a medal and maybe a job2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2009 at 23:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John Sloan - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored version of File:After the war a medal and maybe a job.jpg -- Durova (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Antiwar political cartoon, 1914. Durova (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Durova (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- No more war. Takabeg (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent restored result. Excellent picture --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support That´s life. --Karel (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support More excellent work by Durova. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eilean Donan castle - 95mm.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 20:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eusebius (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very beautiful. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nice landscape, but blurred photo IMO --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive landscape, very nice. --Schnobby (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blur Support now better :) --Leafnode✉ 11:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great image but at full res it does lack some sharpness - fixable? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. Texture of the castle looks liquified, so only the edges could be improved --Leafnode✉ 12:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A quick play would suggest otherwise :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, if so, go ahead :) --Leafnode✉ 12:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sharpened version by Herby (thanks again). I think it is more interesting, although there is more CA on the mast on the left, and a bit more noise in the trees. --Eusebius (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-uploaded. Sharpening reduced, ca fixed? If not preferred the feel free to revert it :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess I ought to :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support support now and thanks to Herby for improved version --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support :) --Pudelek (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You could be a really good paparazzi ;) Great view. Ceridwen (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support image could focus more on the castle but this foto is good enough. --Korman (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view and great light! Good work, Herby, too.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isfahan Lotfollah mosque ceiling.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2009 at 23:40:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Phillip Maiwald (Nikopol) - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The darker parts towards the edges are not caused by vignetting, but by the bulge of the dome. Nikopol (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination! Nikopol (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit 1[edit]

I just uploaded a slightly rotated and cropped version that is more symmetric.

Support Nikopol (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. --99of9 (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support incredible. --AM (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful job! --.ds m. 15:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spitze! --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you, and thank to their god for inspiring such beauty --Phyrexian (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 11:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice picture. Ceridwen (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Isfahan Lotfollah mosque ceiling symmetric.jpg

File:Karl Emil Otto Fritsch-Denkmaeler Deutscher Renaissance-1891-Nuernberg-Pellerhaus zu Nuernberg Aegidienplatz 1605 Facade.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 20:43:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Mylius -- Mylius (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mylius (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can this image be geocoded? Does the building still exist? If so, I don't think this warrants FP since the composition is not good (cutting the left building in half). If it no longer exists, the historic value brings it up a few notches, perhaps a cropped version would be featurable? --99of9 (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Object location added. The building was severly damaged in WWII. Only the ground floor and parts of the courtyard remained. The renaissance facade shown here no longer exists. See de:Pellerhaus. Lupo 11:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kata-Tjuta.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 03:50:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A view from The Valley of The Winds in Kata Tjuta, central Australia.

Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Kata Tjuta means "many heads" in the Aboriginal language of the region, and the huge domes were of importance in their creation myths. This layer of composite rock is the same layer that forms Uluru, approximately 50km away. --99of9 (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom -- 99of9 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting landforms, well composed here. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition - to present landforms I'd expect wider perspective. --Leafnode✉ 11:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your review. The idea is to feel amongst them. This way you see detail of the near one as well as macro-form. --99of9 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As above - composition. Karelj

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Machliny Małe panorama 2009-05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 10:38:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by JDavid - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice place! Any chance of fixing the CA on the tree trunk on the left? --99of9 (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very beautiful. A little hesitant because of the high JPEG compression and CA. --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a panorama, nothing special. —kallerna™ 10:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rozeta Paryż notre-dame chalger.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 11:03:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Albertus teolog - uploaded by Chalger - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excellent photo, but I think the fine details of this difficult subject would require higher resolution for a FP status. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the rose has a diameter of 13 meters is the term "detail" is very relative. Albertus teolog (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would argue that seeing the big picture is rather rewarding. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Maybe it´s not a problem of resolution, but heavy processing? Do you think there would be more detail left if you processed it a bit less strong? Nikopol (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no details. —kallerna™ 10:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition, but I agree with kallerna. --NEURO ^⇌ 22:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wonderful geometry, but I'm with Matti. --99of9 (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sleepy Bay Sunrise.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 12:06:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I think that this place was aptly named - given a bleary eyed 4am start. It is one of the best sunrises that I have seen. I am lucky that I chose to go there that morning, the next one had no colour at all. The previous day I went diving here. It is beautiful under the water too. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous place with a lovely mood at this time of morning. --99of9 (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The early bird catches the worm. --MattiPaavola (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful! Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colours --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Expressionism ROOOOLZ! Would make a great desktop, too. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like long exposures and the mood is fantastic. --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cedar Breaks National Monument partially.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 16:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 10:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp --Leafnode✉ 11:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leafnode, what happened to you? You gaved today 26 oppose in the time 11:18 - 12:01.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also a good image but compared to the similar file this one has much less wow factor. Composition is not clear enough for FP imo. --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Osiris E3751 mp3h8829-e.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 16:13:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Statuette of Osiris sitting, Louvre museum, circa 664 - 332 BCE. Bronze with gold incrustations, 17 cm high, access number E3751. Rama (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Replaced the originally nominated File:Osiris E3751 mp3h8829-c.jpg with the slightly tighted crop File:Osiris E3751 mp3h8829-d.jpg. Rama (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Excellent DOF. Excellent lighting. But, I would prefer a slightly different crop regarding the snake on the hat - maybe to cut it away. --MattiPaavola (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

like this ? Rama (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with snake
without snake

Support Yes, like that! Having DOF reaching only the eyes just rocks in this case IMO. --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info Replaced again File:Osiris E3751 mp3h8829-d.jpg with the slightly tighted crop File:Osiris E3751 mp3h8829-e.jpg. What would I do without MattiPaavola? Rama (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support You need a better way of showing alternatives - all three thumbnails are showing the same image. Anyway, this has a great mood and a lot of visual impact, well done. --99of9 (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, a filename was wrong. Corrected, thank you. Rama (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rama, I recommend that you give a support vote for your nomination. That way it'll have a better chance of being promoted. -- Petritap (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I did not notice such a trend, but I am not a familiar of FPs, you might be right. Nevertheless, I do not feel comfortable to vote for an image that I have produced myself. Rama (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peine del viento de Eduardo Chillida.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2009 at 16:25:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All Nikopol -- Nikopol (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The windcombs of Eduardo Chillida are situated at the entrance to the bay of San Sebastian. There, they "comb" the wind before it enters the city.
Support -- Nikopol (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, as it's a lovely composition. But there's a lot of noise, especially on the rocks, and the whole images is suffering from chromatic aberration and a purple tinge. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above + subject too dark --Leafnode✉ 10:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canyonlands National Park, Utah.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 12:52:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jim Gordon - uploaded by TWO - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After this picture was delisted, I decided to hunt around and see if I could find a replacement.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petrified wood! Looks great in situ. Durova (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 10:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikopol (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unrealistic oversaturation. --99of9 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Even if the colours are natural and don't find the composition, the quality or the theme special enough for FP - Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 99of9 is right on the saturation front, but at the same time I think it is a well executed shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oversaturation :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99. Wolf (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:ComputerHotline - Fort du Bois d-Oye (by) (10).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 10:38:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the composition --Phyrexian (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose flatness, lighting --Leafnode✉ 11:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support not ideal, but nice photo with WoW --Pudelek (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice light!! --Amada44 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gaillardia fanfare centered.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 13:02:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a simple composition, but the photo is all the better for it. Sometimes, simple just works.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful (although I find the lighter spots/objects on the left and above the flower a bit distracting). Nevertheless great. Nikopol (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Sharp, really great.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Diaa abdelmoneim. Durova (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors, but I find the the objects on left and above too distracting for a FP status. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lotus in Suzhou.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 13:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Schnobby (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Lovely resolution, distracting background. Durova (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, unsharp, distracting background. —kallerna™ 10:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree to the distracting background. Perhaps you like the new photo more? Schnobby (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background, sorry. --99of9 (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Crop, background -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Alvesgaspar --MattiPaavola (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't care about the background, but too noisy... --Phyrexian (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop, background --Leafnode✉ 11:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Hazards From Hazards Beach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 15:24:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is the Hazards from a somewhat different angle. Most people see them from Coles Bay, or perhaps Wineglass Bay. Noodle snacks (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questionwhy do you down-sample your landscapes so much? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In most cases people assume that content found on Wikipedia (where it is usually found) is free as in beer. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it might be the case, but the thing is that in a year or so the size requirement will probably be changed to let's say 3 megapixels and then all your wonderfull landscape will be delested :( If I am not mistaking, it happened to few images by fir0002 on English Wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps, it doesn't bother me though. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose picture is nice, but nothing outstanding --Leafnode✉ 11:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Fort de Roppe (15) (by).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 10:40:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. PS A short English description would be appreciated. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Dew droplets on a died insect. --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That explains! :-) Thanks. I have now added this description to the image page. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done photo. Nice! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness, composition, depth of field. Very good capture. Durova (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting enought. —kallerna™ 10:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Böhringer (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose <-- Only until you fix the horribly posterized background. Subject is nice. --99of9 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Little is clear in the picture -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh, wow! --Phyrexian (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating! (I can't find any posterization.) -- H005 15:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Portert van twee jonge Balinese danseressen TMnr 10004678b.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 21:51:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Portert van twee jonge Balinese danseressen TMnr 10004678.jpg.-- Durova (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Balinese dancers, 1929.
Support -- Durova (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work and great picture. Nikopol (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super. Takabeg (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Interesting picture but that's all. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiastic support One of your best restorations! -- JovanCormac 10:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The pic was beautiful, but the restoration is awesome! --Phyrexian (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What a wonderful restoration. Tiptoety ^talk 07:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A wonderful old foto. --Korman (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A wonderful old foto and a good retouch-job. Must have been a lot of work. --AM (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good one. And excellent restoration. --Blago Tebi (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
blaksems mooi Kleuske (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Jugo de naranja.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 01:59:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Danilo94 - uploaded by Danilo94 - nominated by Danilo94 -- Danilo94 (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danilo94 (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, quality not great (unrealistic shadow, discutable geometry of the straw, basic errors in geometric optics). --Eusebius (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Low encyclopedic value compared to a photograph of orange juice.~~ Geometry not exceptional. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After think a little more, I regret my comment: of course there is lots of value since this could be well used as a symbol in various tables etc. Anyway, nothing special in geometry and therefore still opposing. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is neither properly described nor sufficiently categorized. It seems to be barely within COM:SCOPE and I second Eusebius. Is is apparently nowhere used with the exception of this nomination at es-wp. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too flat, too boring. Kleuske (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Etincelles (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teheran US embassy propaganda grasp.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 01:56:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Nikopol -- Nikopol (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As we recently had some propaganda nominated: After the Iranian hostage crisis (1979-1981), the walls of the former US embassy were covered in today infamous anti-US(anti-israeli)-murals. In our guide, the authors wrote about having some problems after taking pictures of the embassy walls, although at other times that didn´t seem to be the case. While I didn´t want to spend much time there, afraid of getting my camera confiscated, I still managed to take some nice pics of the murals. (Here is a shot of the whole scene: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/2614920613_defbcf6237.jpg)
Support -- Nikopol (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any chance of retouching to remove the graffiti? --99of9 (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitly could if everyone here insists, but i´d prefer not to since a) It could be the signature of the artist. Tagging this wall would be insane b) I want to keep it as authentic as possible. Retouching propaganda feels a little awkward... Nikopol (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion taggers are insane. If I'm right that this is just a tagger, then to be true to the original work it would be better to restore it (documented of course), but I understand your hesitation (hence my support either way). --99of9 (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional ~~Oppose~~. Documentation is essential: the unedited version is not available for comparison. Please upload it and cross-link from each version to the other. Please include a link to the other version directly from the nomination. Remember: curators look for good documentation practices when institutions decide whether to digitize. Don't cut corners! Durova (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do these remarks refer to my image, or is it a mistake? Since you wrote the same to Etincelles? Nikopol (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a cut/paste. Please note the differences; the two nominations had different but related problems. Durova (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Here is the unedited version: Nikopol (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Support. Durova (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No COM:FOP in Iran as far as I know. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion should be undertaken in a deletion request IMO. Otherwise people's votes will be a mixture of two different issues. I think we should stick to a FP vote here. --99of9 (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before uploading my images, I asked at the help desk whether I could, and noone could really tell me how the legal situation is, since there is little factual information available. However, despite my research, I found no evidence that there is no freeedom of panorama in Iran (there is rather a lack of entries regarding Iran). If you are looking for a practical indicator: take a look at the category Iran: If there actually was no freedom of panorama, one third of the photots of Iran we have at commons would be illegal. But regarning these files, noone suggested deletion. I don´t see why my picture should be treated differently. It certainly would be important to find answers considering the legal questions, but I think this is not the right forum to do so. Nikopol (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Iranian copyright law does not say anything about FOP exemptions, there is no freedom of panorama in Iran. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since not only my picture, but a huge part of our stock of pictures from Iran would be concerned in this case, I advocate discussing the legal status of pictures from Iran in an appropriate forum. As we have such a huge amount of images which have not been marked for deletion, perhaps the legal situation is not that clear. I know close to nothing about iranian copyright law, but I oppose to my picture beeing treated differently for whatever reason. Nikopol (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh, there was already a response Nikopol (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Support --Phyrexian (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no problem with it being on the featured list, but I think we should generally not feature current propaganda images on the front page. - Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That´s alright with me. Perhaps I should also have made clear in the beginning that this image does in no way reflect my opinion. I simply think it is a perfect example for propaganda and also of historic valaue due to it´s direct relation to the hostage crisis. Nikopol (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps I should also have made clear in the beginning that this image does in no way reflect my opinion" Thank you for that. It was important for me to know!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People always seem to think that you support/approve of what ever is in the pictures you nominate. I'm no fan of the military, but everyone seems to think that I am. Interest in a subject is not the same as approving of it. I just think they take interesting pictures. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pure hate propaganda. Ranbar (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Commons should not promote propaganda GilCahana (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Didn't we had enough with this garbage? Is this the "I want to upset Jews and promote propaganda of hatred"? Where does the world going? Kooritza (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Approve As an Israeli user, I can see the historical value of the picture. Such hateful propaganda can only show the hateful nature of its creators. With proper text and put in a proper historical context it will serve Wikicommon's purpose as a picture of unique historic value. Almog (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I thought about that image for a long time, and decided to oppose it. It is a great quality and very interesting image, and it is inside the project scope, yet I am not sure about featuring such image. IMO many people are not educated enough to recognize it as a propaganda even, if it is put in the right category. I would also add that I am against politicizing FP. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 89.138.141.27 20:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is absolutely true that this is an example of aggressive propaganda and I also see that it could offend a lot of people. But I still think that it is important to cover such topics in wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, and as such it should inform people even about terrible things. Kooritza, I don´t know anything about past discussions. I can imagine that articles related to Israel, the holocaust, etc... are often vandalized and victim of antisemitic edits, but this was absolutely not my intent here. In my opinion, it is impossible to get rid of antisemitic media (we all know the internet), so we should rather try to put it in a context and explan uninformed people why it is wrong. That does not mean we should put on wikipedia all of the stuff we find, but some important examples should be discussed in an appropriate way. If you look at articles of quality newspapers covering the hostage crisis, you will find they often use images of these murals. I think it should be possible in wikipedia to somehow cover propaganda, but on the other hand make shure the intent of doing so (p.ex. by appropriate categorization, extensive descriptions, etc.). Not featuring this image on the front page could be a way of achiving this goal, and perhaps some users with greater knowledge about the topic could write a more extensive description text for the image. Nikopol (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that you have malicious intentions, and I agree that wikipedia must demonstrate this horrible and disgusting things. However, such sensitive issues must be dealt in the context of an article in order to prevent damage to readers that aren't experts, and I don't believe that it is possible to do that in the few lines permitted in FP. Kooritza (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose antisemi and anti america, doesn't deserve the honor. Yiftach T (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not anti-semitic image,it is anti-Israel, which is a very big difference. If it were anti-semitic, I would have opposed it right away--Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support As per Mbz1. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I actually opposed the image because no matter what it represents a propaganda of hate, and IMO Commons FP is a wrong platform for such images. Besides as I was explained few minutes ago the mural is antisemitic as well. Even I had not enough knowledge to recognize it as such that only proves one more time my point - the image cannot be featured. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I meant as per Almog. Your name was just below it and I confused the two. If you'd like me to explain my reasons further, I'm more than happy to. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chartres - cathédrale - annonciation.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 08:35:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eusebius (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a good shot but it is slightly tilted, i.e. leaning to the right. I would like to see it slightly rotated or its perspective corrected. I think that the tree in the middle could be a depiction of the tree of life which represents the coming Christ. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lotus in a garden in Suzhou.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 10:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Schnobby (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The composition looks like a snapshot. - Peripitus (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Natural composition works fine for me. --99of9 (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, noisy, too centered, would be better as portrait. —kallerna™ 16:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice, natural colors. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, but it's too noisy... --Phyrexian (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor lighting, trivial composition --Leafnode✉ 11:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting (diffuse) is good. However there is a colour cast and I agree on the trivial compostition. --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fumarole solfatara 2005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 20:22:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kleuske - uploaded by Kleuske - nominated by Kleuske -- Kleuske (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kleuske (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Difficult to see what it is, it gives no sense of scale or direction. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Pieter + JPEG artifects --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose somehow a bit dull --Amada44 (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Granada, 1970.1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 16:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Schnobby (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could you add more info about this picture? Granada is a big city - was this nice shot maybe taken in some part of Alhambra? Also, info about the camera used would be nice - I guess you didn't have a D90 those days? :-) I think that the original photographer should also be mentioned in the Author field. --MattiPaavola (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This picture was taken in the Alhambra at night in 1970. The camera was a Linhof Technica 4x5 inch, lens f=90 mm, operating at F 11, converted with NIKON D90 in JPEG, it is a detail from sheet film. I already mentioned the original author Hans Bernhard in the Author field, who is my husband. --Schnobby (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding the details in the description. I got confused concerning the author since the Permission field says "Reproductions of works by Ingeborg Bernhard".
Neutral This is obviously a very good shot. I'm assuming that the moon was used for backlight and the front is covered with tungsten filament. Taken that into account, the white balance is controlled nicely. The combination of yellow and blue light just add to the image. On the minus side, the crop and the perspective aren't perfect at top right and there is the film grain which, however, is alone in tolerable limits IMO. Therefore, neutral from me. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hoodoos in the Bryce Canyon National Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 23:29:21 (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) 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great color changes. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture! When I was there, sadly the phenomenon was not to be witnessed. Looks really ghostly Nikopol (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 16:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful creatures of the nature. BTW, was there some additional artificial lighting used behind the rocks or is this all natural? Support anyway. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I took this image without flash or other additional artificial lightning. This is a contre-jour shot. The hoodoos are illuminated by reflected sunlight coming from the hoodoos in front of them. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beauty. Tiptoety ^talk 07:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose scenery is great, but image is terribly noisy and unsharp --Leafnode✉ 11:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leafnode, what happened to you? You gaved today 26 oppose in the time 11:18 - 12:01. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't have time to vote progressively, so I voted en masse for all active FPC votes - that explains amount. And why so many opposes? Well... I just think those images were not good enough. I know my point of view might seem extreme, but recently I've decided not to hesitate to oppose if I see major flaws, even if the image is generally supported. --Leafnode✉ 08:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technical quality is OK on full screen. Excellent mood and lighting. --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk)

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

File:Sergei Rachmaninoff LOC 33968 Cropped.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 16:21:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created by the Bain News Service (Original image is located here) - uploaded by Etincelles - nominated by Etincelles - Etincelles (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version of File:Sergei Rachmaninoff LOC 33968.jpg, digitaly restored to remove scratches and dust by Etincelles.

Support - Etincelles (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose. Documentation is essential: please give detailed notes of specific edits performed and please include a link to the unrestored version directly from the nomination. Remember: curators look for good documentation practices when institutions decide whether to digitize. Don't cut corners! Durova (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LoC does not create images, they just archive them; this is from the en:Bain News Service. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag-map of the world.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 05:34:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Transparent 6lue - uploaded by Transparent 6lue - nominated by Transparent 6lue -- Transparent 6lue (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Transparent 6lue (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not so sure Greenland is correct. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great idea, and beautifully executed. Correlations that I wasn't aware of until now can be seen at a glance, e.g. that most African countries have green as the predominant color in their flags. Greenland is formally a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, so it looks OK to me. True, they have their own flag, but so does Alaska which is also shown with the flag of the "parent state". -- JovanCormac 10:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that the Greenlandic flag shouln't replace the Danish, Alaska's relation to the United States is to my knowledge no different from that of any of the other 50 states - Greenland, however, is far more autonomous than any other area (possibly except for the Faeroes) under the Danish crown. --Aqwis (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have only shown the national flags here, regardless of how autonomous any of their subdivisions are. --Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I would suggest replacing the Norwegian flag on Svalbard with a uniform red colour. --Aqwis (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although this would certainly make it look a lot better, keep in mind that it could be confused with the red of Denmark/Greenland/Faroe Islands. --Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The status of Svalbard is special - not really Norway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, Norway's surely the most accurate national flag that you could apply to it. Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Svalbard is a part of the Kingdom of Norway, see en:Politics_of_Svalbard#Spitsbergen_Treaty. --Kjetil_r 20:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would prefer the sea to be non-white, because it merges with some of the flags. Perhaps a very pale blue? --99of9 (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The black outlines should not make the ocean a problem. However, if anyone wants to change the ocean to very pale blue (or perhaps very pale grey), someone else will have to do it because the finished file makes my computer lag too much. --Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The black outlines aren't enough for my eyes. But I'm an idiot... the sea is transparent in the svg, so I can have whatever background I like - no need for a change.

Support --99of9 (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Clever idea and quality implementation. ~~PS could you make the Finnish flag slightly smaller, the same size as the Swedish flag.~~ --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Finnish flag is bigger than the Swedish one because if you look up the proportions, the Finnish cross is much more thicker. The shapes of the countries are also a factor in how they turned out. --Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. After checking the sources, I have to shamely admit that I didn't know my and my neighbor's flags. :-) Thanks for the explanation. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Whatever the background colour, it's simply great. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Econt (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not convinced by this idea --Leafnode✉ 11:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the map is inconsistent. It shows Alaska and Greenland the same way, it shows Kosovo but doesn't show Palestine, flag proportions are strictly kept for Finland and Greece but not for Japan and South Korea, no clear criteria over which island nations were included and why etc. So even though the idea is fine there is still a lot of work to do.--Avala (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by Alaska and Greenland being "the same way", but I'll answer the other points. I have updated the map to reflect a new criteria, which is the UN member countries ~~plus the Republic of China~~. As for the proportions, I decided that the designs where the field was distinctly divided into several areas should be kept as close to the original as possible. On the other hand, I decided that the symbol-on-a-background designs could be resized if it would help recognisability. I have added all islands now. Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Avala. What are the criterias about selected countries? --.ds m. 18:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UN member countries ~~plus the Republic of China~~. Transparent 6lue (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Western Sahara the UN member state? Why would you add the Republic of China which has less recognitions than Western Sahara and also why not add Palestine which has more reconigtions than any other state? It's obvious there is no criteria for this map.--Avala (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me of the situation, I wasn't sure about how recognised certain places are. In any case, I have taken Takabeg's advice and now the map shows only the UN member states. Also, I'm still confused about your statement that "It shows Alaska and Greenland the same way", could you please clarify what this means and what you would recommend instead? Transparent 6lue (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the status of Alaska and Greenland is not the same. Though this is the matter not so important and can be viewed differently so I will change my vote to

Support now that the criteria is set.--Avala (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I recommend you change as the map of Member States of the United Nations. Takabeg (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If his is the map of Member States of the United Nations, the name should be "Flag-map of the United Nations member states". Because all recognized states of the world aren't here. --.ds m. 14:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Conditional support - When did Morocco annex Western Sahara ? When did People's Republic of China annex Republic of China ? I think they must be shown in white (blank map). Takabeg (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UN's official position (to the best of my knowledge) is that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China, and that Western Sahara is part of Morocco. Also, if I changed those two to white, it'd start up arguments and debates about which places should be white and which ones shouldn't (for example Palestine, Kosovo etc.). So, although there is no perfect solution to the problem of "which countries should be shown on this map, and how?", the current version seems to provoke the least arguing so it's probably the closest to "perfect" that it can get. Feel free to suggest any more improvements, though. Transparent 6lue (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the map of UN. Takabeg (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've changed Western Sahara to light grey now, especially as it is a Non-Self-Governing Territory with no administration (source). As for Taiwan, I'm sure that it's correct the way it is, but don't hesitate to correct me if necessary. Transparent 6lue (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A great idea--Pianoplonkers (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – nice idea, well done. --Kjetil_r 10:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maro stern.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2009 at 00:15:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Keta - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colours and composition --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 10:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kleuske (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a lot of drama in this one. --Blago Tebi (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Water

File:Petra Jordan BW 36.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 15:23:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Only the penitent man will pass" -- JovanCormac 15:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik this was Al Khazneh

;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Though the "inner" part with the two lions doesn't appear to exist at all in reality... -- JovanCormac 20:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, the crop is too tight IMO. —kallerna™ 16:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. Nice picture apart from that. Nikopol (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tight crop --Leafnode✉ 11:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop. It's a long walk to get up there; the least you could do is show us some of the sky over the building. Daniel Case (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you crop it like this? Nikopol (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even worse. --Leafnode✉ 11:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Avala (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phellinus igniarius Oak 2009 G2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 11:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info False tinder fungus (Phellinus igniarius) on a dead Oak.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, bad light (shades), no wow. —kallerna™ 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad lighting and a kind of straight forward composition --AngMoKio (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose VI --Leafnode✉ 11:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Low pressure system over Iceland.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 23:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Brian0918 - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and rare --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic. -- JovanCormac 08:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice how far you can zoom in Nikopol (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Impressive, but I would have preferred it without the coast line drawn over it. --Eusebius (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amrum (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spitzkoppe 360 Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 14:42:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice landscape --Pudelek (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, absolutely terrific. --Aqwis (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 99of9 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amrum (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 10:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe a bit to black in the stone area but what a view and sharpness! --Simonizer (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and skillful stitch. Nikopol (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. Excellent result --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sebman81 (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Etincelles (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonder! --Phyrexian (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Royal Naval college-3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2009 at 17:26:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This images shows the Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth on the River Dart. There has been a training centre for naval officers here since the 1860's but this building was completed in 1905.
Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice picture --Pudelek (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, I don't like the composition and the detail could be much better. As a side note, the large size of the thumb fools the reviewer into thinking this is a panorama, which is not. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise for any apparent "fooling" - it was certainly not my intention. Any larger crop would have brought in unnecessary detail. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colors, very beautiful scenery, good EV and very good quality.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not detailed, blurry at the lower left corner and some of the trees, some blue artifacts at the houses in the front. A panorama would have been much better with higher res, more details, corrected levels and sharpness.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Couldn´t find a decision right now. I like the light + the colors and the composition would be alright with me, but there´s these brightly lit houses in front. Also, level of detail/resolution is ~~low~~ not amazing. Nikopol (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how far you zoomed it but I can count the sheep in the field to the right and the rear...:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better formulation? I think Alvesgaspar was right, you are somehow disappointed when you discover it´s not a panorama. Any chance of taking one? And as I stated, I´m not decided yet. In general, for me technical issues are all in all less important than the overall feeling of a picture and I might well approve in the end Nikopol (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - one of the reasons for doing this is to get feedback and I appreciate it. I will definitely go for a panorama next time I am that way but it won't be for a while yet. As I said I had no intentions of misleading with this but I had to crop the foreground or I would not have supported it :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Composition ~~& resolution~~. Because you have such great elevation, I think even the front houses would be better cut out. ~~But of course then you would need a high-res panorama to get details on the College.~~ Definitely potential at this location. --99of9 (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Actually, looking at it longer, I think the resolution is sufficient, so maybe a crop will be enough? --99of9 (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can crop it (& will) if that is what folks want? The resolution shouldn't be an issue really. Not sure what is best - an "alt" one? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be happy to see (and I think support) an Alt, though I can't speak for anyone else. --99of9 (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAn impresive building, but the houses in front distract too much. They are also partially cropped which doesn't help either. It might well be that it is not possible to take a FP which shows this building entirely without using a helicopter since I'm afraid that the composition will collapse if the bottom part is just cropped away from this image. A very valuable image with nice colors anyway. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt version[edit]

Available if this is of interest to people :) Thanks.

Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Less sky in this version please? --99of9 (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Ok, good for me. --99of9 (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the vertical balance of the composition isn't perfect IMO. Very valuable image anyway. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good for me --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support BESSER --Böhringer (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 04:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo, but oppose per Matti. I don't think the rule of thirds is meant to apply to the vertical axis of such a strongly horizontal photo. Severnjc (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /=--Mbz1 (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Royal Naval college-3 alt.jpg

File:A starry sky above Death Valley and Orionid.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 17:52:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info We have no single meteor featured I believe, so here it is: Multicolored w:meteor w:Orionid is exploding over Death Valley National Park
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It really is much too noisy, consider using lower ISO than 1600. I suppose you used a tripod, why didn´t you take ISO 100 and a long exposure time? Nikopol (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, you've never taken a picture of a meteor.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn´t realise the meteor is the important thing, must have somehow skipped this part of the explanation. But IMO the capture of the meteor does not quite make up for that amount of noise. Nikopol (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikopol, just check the date when this photograph was taken: 22 October 2007. As you can check out from this table, Mbz1 apparently planned this photograph carefully by journeying to the Death valley exactly when an Orionid shower was to be expected and where, given the extremely dry air and the absence of artificial light, you get fine conditions for photographing the night sky. Given the speed of the meteors, the selection of ISO 1600 (at an exposure time of 8s) sounds quite sensible to me. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was taking the images I was mostly thinking about capturing as many meteors as possible even very faint ones because the images are used for recerch. I used fisheye in order to capture as much sky as possible. The lens aperture is 3.5. To capture faint meteors with such a lens and such an aperture I should have used ISO 1600. I did not care about noise. My bad, how I forgot about FPC

That's OK I should have learned a long time ago never to nominate for FPC something that is special to me :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Nothing featurable here, either the quality or the rarity -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, what could be featurable in the only image of a meteor to be present in FP images :) If it is feutered, it will be so lonely :) --Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

should have kept it to myself :)

Edit 1[edit]

Support reduced noise and lost some stars in the process :(--Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

should have kept it to myself :)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grand Prismatic Spring and Midway Geyser Basin from above.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2009 at 07:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mila Zinkova - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Tiptoety -- Tiptoety ^talk 07:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiptoety ^talk 07:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - WOW! Strong support! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this one which looks very similar is already featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Daniel's right, the nomination is here. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - duplicate of an already featured image.--Avala (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Avala. —kallerna™ 16:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: The nomination is useless as the same image, with a different name, is already a FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose per Avala. --Korman (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abbazia di Melk - Fontana all'esterno.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 09:24:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dongio - uploaded by Dongio - nominated by Dongio -- Dongio (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dongio (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image but I don't see anything that makes me think it is "featurable", sorry --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - distracting background, overexposed sky --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing spectacular. --Aktron (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Dferg ^(disputatio) 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chamäleon1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 09:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby

- nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Schnobby (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but IMO too noisy and too shallow DOF. —kallerna™ 10:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to the DOF, I think the lighting is too extreme. --99of9 (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The lighting was true to Madagascar. No tricks! Schnorch (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, but a fill-flash would have moderated the shadows Severnjc (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but the DOF is insufficient. Also, a scientific name of the species would be nice in the description. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petra Jordan BW 43.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2009 at 10:01:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated -- Berthold Werner (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This crop is much better then the other one! --Leviathan (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Takabeg (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent foto. --Korman (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bit soft but otherwise fp. —kallerna™ 16:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Look at people! :O Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither composition nor pixel-quality of this image is impressing. Too little of the ground is visible on the favor of sky — what is the reason for this? Beside, the sharpness is nowhere near satisfying — I can see you tried to use USM, but to no avail. Also, your description sucks big time. What in Petra is this object? Petra is not just 1 sqm big. You should be more precise. --Blago Tebi (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's Ad-Deyr (The Monastery), as seen in Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. Daniel Case (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too much sky IMO. The light is really harsh. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Harsh light is to be expected in the desert. Kleuske (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better crop. Daniel Case (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Sossusvlei sand dunes.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 14:45:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Winfried Bruenken (Amrum) - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The simplicity and colour/composition is very appealing --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this as it is, but wonder if it is possible to crop a little wider on the right to get nice jagged corners as you have on the left. --99of9 (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikopol (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Herby Je-str (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just great...--Djuneyt_tr (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual yet interesting and not implausible color; intriguing lines (Nature as abstract artist). Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow Kwj2772 (msg) 07:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Library of Congress Great Hall - Jan 2006.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2009 at 18:32:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Dilif - nominated by --190.31.27.15 18:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)--190.31.27.15 18:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTwo things : first, the original version seems to have a better white balance. The current one looks blueish to me. Second, i find the bottom part of the picture somewhat too dim -- yet i understand that you had to get the whole hall in the same frame, from the brightest arches to the darkest nooks, and this is no HDR. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ridiculously perfect as usual. -- JovanCormac 07:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wonderful 99of9 (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Takabeg (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive image, high res., properly applied tone mapping. --Ikiwaner (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! --.ds m. 15:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ORF Interviw in Wien 16.04.2009.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2010 at 13:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eino81 - uploaded by Eino81 - nominated by Eino81 -- Eino81 (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eino81 (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image composition would benefit of a crop giving more importance to the 3 people. The main subject's face is not seen. As a side comment ortographic mistake in name of the file.--Garrondo (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small. --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Katta in Berenty.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 09:33:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Schnobby (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, poor quality. —kallerna™ 10:47, 20 December 2009 (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: backlit subject, poor quality

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

--ianaré (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

91.13.222.87 08:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:At close grips2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2009 at 04:15:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by H.D. Gridwood - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:At close grips.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The best digital photograph I've yet found of WWI: two US soldiers charge a bunker past the bodies of two German soldiers against a desolate background.
Support -- Durova (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yay, war propaganda. Wolf (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is there any documentation to show that this is indeed an action shot? Anyone familiar with First World War photography field equipment would know that this shot would have been incredibly difficult to do during a battle, especially outside the protection of a trench. No information of which battle, formation or unit involved. The un-restored original certainly appears to be a stereoscopic image, which means two cameras would have been employed to make the unrestored image? I find such a photographic achievement hard to believe. Why has the image been split given its a stereoview? My primary concern is that the image is staged, a common propaganda practice during the First World War (Ex: Image:Going_over_the_top_01.jpg). The lack of back story on the image or any info on the author make validation extremely difficult. If promoted it should be on the basis of it being a staged image nut a battle image.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You don't need two cameras to take a stereoscopic view. At that time, they had already stereoscopic cameras (i.e. one camera with two lenses) which were not particularly bigger or heavier than a 'normal' camera. However, that doesn't mean that the image is authentic. In this case it's very difficult to judge whether it is a real battle view or a staged one. -- MJJR (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it isn't a battle photo. It is a war propaganda. --.ds m. 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's basically a fake which lost the third dimension during restoration. I would be curious to see early stereographic images here on FP however. Is there a simple way to watch them? --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Labattblueboy. Kleuske (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Etincelles (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Labattblueboy. --Karel (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 21:46:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Antonio de Leon y Gama - uploaded by Garrondo - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1.jpg by Garrondo and Durova-- Durova (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Illustration of the Aztec calendrical system from the first major work of Aztec archaeology, published 1792.
Support as conominator. -- Durova (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as conominator.--Garrondo (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why the long file name? ZooFari 22:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eighteenth century book titles tended to be long. Durova (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I recently complained that a lot of the FP restorations don't have much visual impact. But this one does, well done on the find. --99of9 (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes - good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Amrum (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Estómago.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 23:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Danilo94 - uploaded by Danilo94 - nominated by Danilo94 -- Danilo94 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danilo94 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Dude1818 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too flat; illustration is too far removed from the actual biology of the stomach. Severnjc (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mandel zoom 00 mandelbrot set.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2009 at 02:40:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wolfgangbeyer - uploaded by Wolfgangbeyer - nominated by Dude1818 -- Dude1818 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dude1818 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could a higher resolution version be made easily? --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it would be possible to create the same image in much higer resolution. To be exact, it could be as large until Wikipedia reaches the filesize limit. --Niabot (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the reply. Given the nature of fractals, I would like to see a higher resolution version before supporting this. You might also want to consider a lossless image format. --MattiPaavola (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TautropfenRose2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2009 at 00:19:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Well nice, clean, saturated and with high visual impact photograph. Unfortunately the main droplet should be in focus and very sharp, which isn't the case. May be a DOF too shallow ? Sting (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the water sphere so much. Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amrum (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too shallow DOF. —kallerna™ 10:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its nice, but as Kallerna said, DOF is extremly narrow and somehow the image is not wow enough. --Amada44 (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. --Karel (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --99of9 (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shallow DoF makes the subject too blurry. --Leafnode✉ 13:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Four Stones.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2009 at 22:58:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pianoplonkers - uploaded by Pianoplonkers - nominated by Pianoplonkers -- Pianoplonkers (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pianoplonkers (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little more info about the stones would be nice. I imagine they're more than just "stones"... Kleuske (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversaturated green --Simonizer (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, poor quality. —kallerna™ 11:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna I'm afraid --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AmbewelaFarms-April2009.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2009 at 12:34:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rehman - uploaded by Rehman - nominated by Rehman -- Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, poor quality, now wow. —kallerna™ 13:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see anything very noteworthy in this picture. Kleuske (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kallerna, sorry --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also there should be no watermarks. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your points. :) Thanks for your time.

File:Fundamentfuss-Stuttgarter-Fernsehturm-beschriftet-de.png, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2009 at 11:01:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Model of the basement from the Stuttgarter Fernsehturm

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Niabot (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niabot (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support high EV, nice diagram Wladyslaw (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and clean, especially the numbered version. ElHeineken (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this a photo or is a some kind of rendered image? The DOF is a bit low which could get fixed in a rendered image, I guess. In general I agree it is a nice diagram. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an rendered image. I increased the DOF from 0.8 to 1.1 --Niabot (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it your intention to have the inner parts of that fundament slightly out of focus? --AngMoKio (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes it was. I wanted the points with the explanations inside focus, so it is a slight bit before the center. --Niabot (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't it be better to make it language independent by numbering the parts instead ? /Daniel78 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Informative, illustrative and well composed and rendered. Kleuske (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I support the numbered version instead. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

A numbered version is also available. --Niabot (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the numbered international version only. - Well done! --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version. --99of9 (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Fundamentfuss-Stuttgarter-Fernsehturm-beziffert.png

File:Raitersaich SK DSC 0028.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2009 at 15:09:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A powerful image! The composition strongly focuses on the power lines, no disturbing stuff around. Thechnically OK. --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 10:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don`t like the overlapping part on the right side --212.8.208.137 11:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anonymous voting isn't considered. Please log in before --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Garrondo (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support My first vote after 80 days! ■ MMXX ^talk 04:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the German transmission-line tower photo we've been waiting for. Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an holy image! --Phyrexian (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Sokółka - Town hall.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2009 at 12:40:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Yarl -- Yarl ✉ 12:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yarl ✉ 12:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obvious CA visible at thumbnail size (watch the downspouts). It's nice you could take the picture without any cars in front. But one should crop the parking slot markings. --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sharpness, composition (parking lot, antenna) --Leafnode✉ 13:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline of Toronto, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2009 at 10:37:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wladyslaw - uploaded by Wladyslaw - nominated by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great, but could be a little bit sharper (counts for every image). ;-) --Niabot (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing foreground, unsharp too. --AM (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hätte man sich das Bild genau angeschaut wüsste man, dass es kein Schiff ist, was da am rechten Rand zu sehen ist. Wladyslaw (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done HDR, good perspective and comp. --Ikiwaner (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good technical quality, but I'd like to see the boat been either fully shown or cropped away. --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The part you see at the right corner is not a ship but a part of the wharf. Wladyslaw (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I anyway think that the mast and the related equipment should be either fully shown or cut away completely to meet the very high criteria of an FP. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Matti. --99of9 (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not up there with our best skylines. -- JovanCormac 10:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems a little underexposed to me (perhaps brighten it up?) Noodle snacks (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at this picture with my TFT-Monitor under good conditions this picture glow positivly. You may adjust your monitor if you think it is underexposed. I have also made a brighter version: [1], but this candidate is closer to reality. Wladyslaw (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good image but I agree with MattiPaavola, sorry --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically good, but significant posterization in the sky. Severnjc (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd support a better crop --Leafnode✉ 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Electricity pole.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2009 at 19:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 19:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (Please credit as Rubinstein Felix) - uploaded by Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 19:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - nominated by Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 19:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) -- Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 19:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 19:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the main subject is the electricity pole there are too many distracting elements around it.--Garrondo (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think I am with Garrondo. If it is about an electricity pole then quite a lot of the lower part of the image needs to go. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose messy composition --Leafnode✉ 13:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Pedder From Mt Eliza.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2009 at 10:45:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Simonizer -- Simonizer (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great view, nice light and good quality-- Simonizer (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Good, but I really would like to see more stuff on bottom (it should be wider). —kallerna™ 11:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The panorama was taken from the top of a cliff. The "path" up is rather steep as well. You would not be missing much except some rock in the foreground. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I'll move it to Neutral. :) —kallerna™ 10:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of my favourite walks. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, well done! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I was going to nominate it myself at some stage, it would be rude not to support. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Nikopol (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very nice. --Aqwis (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh yes! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
blaksems mooi Kleuske (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely. --99of9 (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Nice image notes, as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 04:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking. Didn't even look at it in high-res; didn't need to. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible landscape.--Garrondo (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yay bandwagon! Severnjc (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel like a bird watching at this panorama --Phyrexian (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 13:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Artcarfest in San Francisco.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 13:30:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Isn't it a bit too red? Wolf (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe. I discovered the thing after sunset, so I had no choice as to use time exposure. The colors are original. I did not ajust them in PS, but here's a new version:

Question What about the artist? I think the least you could do is credit the artist who decorated the car; featuring a work of art without crediting its author would really be unfair. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with you, but I do not know the name of the artist. I even went to their website and emailed them, but they never responded. If I knew the name, I would have removed my name from the desription at all. Could you please give me an advise what should I do in such situation? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have friends in the police department, you could ask them to run the license plate number :) –Tryphon ^☂ 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have friends there, but it is a good idea. Maybe, if I explain to police what I need it for they will help me:) In a meantime I believe I deserve to be awarded with "unfair FPC contributor" barnstar :) BTW here's a side story about police. Once my car was broken into, and my camera was stolen. Few weeks later on the same parking lot I saw two men standing next to the broken window of another car. Except the two men parking lot was deserted, no people only few empty cars here and there, yet the men parked their van right next to the car with a broken window. The glass from the window was on the ground. The break was fresh. When the men saw me they got back to their car, and left. I was able to take few images of them, and their car with my new camera. I went to police, but they explained to me that as long as I did not actually see how they broken that window, nothing could be done about the men. They refused to run any check on them at all. I called my insurance company, the one, who paid for my stolen camera, but they were not interested either--Mbz1 (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~The description of the image was changed to the best of my ability. Thank you, Tryphon, for pointing it out to me.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)~~ I was told I cannot do it.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the edited version Dude1818 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much stuff. The "wow" was lost with the modifications. —kallerna™ 14:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to support original :) --Mbz1 (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Definitely of interest. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main subject contains many details. Therefore, I would prefer a very simple background to keep the balance. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Artcarfest_in_San_Francisco_1.jpg

File:Plaza del Coso de Peñafiel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 14:01:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Rastrojo. Panorama composed by 5 images of a traditional Spanish bullring. Maybe it seems a little bit tilted to left, but it's the real appearance of the square -- Rastrojo _(D•ES) 14:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 14:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed sky. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose It is so unfortunate about the sky, because this is otherwise a wonderful scene. Well done. --99of9 (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support La foto es sobre la plaza, el cielo es lo que menos importa. Lourdes (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Matti, plus the wow is limited (although it's an interesting image). @Lourdes: Not only the main subject of the image should have good quality for it to become FP. -- H005 17:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --.ds m. 20:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as H005, sorry. Nikopol (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support La foto tiene un aire misterioso que la hace magnifica y el color del cielo ayuda a ello. --MarisaLR (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as H005 --Leafnode✉ 13:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bluff erosion in Pacifica 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 21:20:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info On November 17, 2009 30 feet chunk of the cliff below the apartment building fell to Pacific Ocean. Residents were given 20 minutes to evacuate the building. Now the workers are trying to save it.Here's view from a balcony of the next building and here is the crane they used to throw boulders under the cliff
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image with a very high EV given the event (& events in the world as a whole!). Even more focus on the erosion would be equally appropriate --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version. --99of9 (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Or this one --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything special --Llorenzi (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are so right! What could be special in an image of the building that is about to fall into ocean?

My bad, next time I will try to come up with something more special--Mbz1 (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Llorenzi meant that picture is nothing special, not the object. --Leafnode✉ 13:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose crop not showing what's directly below the building, hazy, unsharp --Leafnode✉ 13:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to oppose original

--Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brown Pelican, Pelagic Boat Trip.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2010 at 05:32:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mike Baird - uploaded by Chin tin tin - nominated by Korall -- Korall (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Je-str (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good color; sharp aside from acceptable motion blur Severnjc (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow!--Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Cayambe (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light! —kallerna™ 10:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice ! Kleuske (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems a bit artificial to me. Thoughts, please? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Like... it's stuffed? Severnjc (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What I was wondering when I was reviewing this is that whether the bird is landing or taking off? Sometimes knowing what exactly is happening in a frozen motion opens it up more at least for me. --MattiPaavola (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I know, Mike Baird does not have an account on commons, so if you want to know, you should probalbly ask him through flickr.--Korall (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty sure it's landing. Basar (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kwj2772 (msg) 03:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice action shot. Basar (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Kumar83 00:44, 29 December 2009 (IST)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Confederation Bridge Segment nummeriert.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2010 at 11:58:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot. Note this is a numbered version of this image with a black background. Source-Images (even with transparent backround) are available and listed in the image description. -- Niabot (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niabot (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would look better if the left "Hauptträger" wasn't cut off. Also, it's a bit strange that the water's surface isn't completely flat where it has been cut virtually for illustration purposes. --Kabelleger (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this as a hint, to make clear, that the bridge elements are continually repeated. The cutout isn't 100 % sharp, because you can also see it like a forcefield, that restrains the water from flowing away. Its more a freedom of design, rather than an mistake. --Niabot (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kos airport 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2010 at 23:07:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why? Nothing special. —kallerna™ 00:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The post-processing is quite obvious. The trees in the back seem to glow. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not at all outstanding composition, not even much of information. --wg (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Glowing trees. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too much post-processing. What exactly is the subject - the church, the small jet, the corner of the terminal, the slither of wing? Wexcan Talk 17:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From my point of view - subject of photo is just contrast of combination - modern planes x old clasic chappel. But the truth is, that the post-processing here very high. --Karel (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ŽS class 710 between Jasenovik and Vrelo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 21:32:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the view and these Swedish railcars :) -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry - nice image but nothing that makes me think it is "featurable" --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. Vrlo odlično. --Aktron (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Herbythyme. -- H005 15:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Herby --Leafnode✉ 13:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A good image, but not enough wow for me. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frauenkirche Dresden Detail.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 20:32:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Je-str - uploaded by Je-str - nominated by Je-str -- Je-str (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Je-str (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you add some more description, i.e. which face of the dome, geocode, date of exposure? -- H005 21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K. - see description Je-str (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. --Aktron (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I foresee many complaints about the crop, but I like tight crops from an unusual perspective. -- H005 14:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But does this unusual perspective do justice to the Frauenkirche? Or you care just about your picture and not about the subject? --Blago Tebi (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not meant to depict the entire Frauenkirche, is it? It shows details of the work, which is helpful in this particular case where old structures have been rebuilt using modern methods. And btw it's not my picture. -- H005 23:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition, quality is also nice. I don´t think images of buildings do always have to show the whole construction, architectural details are also fine with me Nikopol (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Congratulations for the courage to shoot such an unusual perspective. In terms of sharpness and exposure this is also a good image. However the documentary value is low. Why? We do not see a full capital, it's cropped on the right. The cornice is interrupted on the left bottom. And we do not see an interesting part of the roof construction. The image could be much better when it would focus on one or two architectural elements. --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The main thing of the picture is not the capital and is also not an interesting part of the roof. The main thing is the cornice (see description). In the interruption of the cornice is nothing else to see what is not already shown. Je-str (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose artsy, because of what it lost any encyclopedic value. I think we shouldn't promote deliberate removal of informational values --Leafnode✉ 13:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Pinball Dot Matrix Display - Demolition Man.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 10:41:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Large (gas discharge) matrix display used in pinball machines.
Info created by ElHeineken - uploaded by ElHeineken - nominated by ElHeineken -- ElHeineken (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ElHeineken (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! --Aktron (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good demonstration on what DOF means, but no WOW enough for a FP status. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it - I like the EV, I like the concept and composition. Wolf (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MattiPaavola --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should be sharper. —kallerna™ 14:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a terribly exciting subject. A good technical demonstration of DoF, but unfortunately that's about it for me. --Wexcan Talk 03:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as above. --Vprisivko (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buddhabrot max 500k iterations.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2010 at 23:45:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

$buddhabrot fractal$

Info created by Miyabineko - uploaded by Miyabineko - nominated by Miyabineko -- Miyabineko (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miyabineko (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given the nature of fractals, I would expect higher resolution. Also, some kind of false color coding with good documentation would be nice. --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laughing Kookaburra Gravestone.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 23:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom -- 99of9 (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh yes :) I like this one a lot. Good image of the bird, DOF etc with a great setting. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO far too soft. —kallerna™ 14:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well framed, but seems slightly out of focus. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it, but feel that the bird is too soft. Basar (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Ahornspitze and Brandburger Kolm, Schwaz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2010 at 16:54:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Egemont - uploaded by Egemont - nominated by Pianoplonkers -- Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great image but definitely overexposed in the upper right corner I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "This media file is uncategorized." + bad crop. —kallerna™ 10:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor crop on bottom right, blown-out in top right. Wexcan Talk 17:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop and lighting/overexposure. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malnurished Afghan Child.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2009 at 11:39:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Severnjc - uploaded by Severnjc - nominated by Severnjc -- Severnjc (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Photo of an 18-month old Afghan girl who weighed 14 pounds when presented to doctors. Currently the only extant photo for wikipedia articles Telogen effluvium (hair loss due to malnutrition) and, amazingly, malnutrition itself. Exposure is slightly on the high side, resulting on some burn-out on the white packaging materials in the lower right (I stepped the exposure up slightly to avoid using the flash to fill shadows, which the medics felt would be distracting). Severnjc (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Severnjc (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the high value of this image overrides its technical merits. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question How about a crop at the bottom? I'd say that it would be a good idea to crop up until the flag on the shoulder. It would get rid of some overexposed fragments and make the composition less "traditional". Wolf (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version. --99of9 (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI want to see the whole bottle.--Korall (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Cropped per Wolf's suggestion. Seems to help focus more attention on the child, but on the other hand showing the packing materials and medical equipment demonstrated the medical emergency nature of the child's malnutrition. Both have their merits and I support either version. Severnjc (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this one a lot better. It's far from perfect in terms of quality, but a good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Wolf (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Subject is very interesting, but technically it's bad. --Leafnode✉ 13:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

The chosen alternative is: File:Malnurished_Afghan_Child.jpg

File:Kos priests.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2009 at 17:18:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Composition would be much enhanced if cropped to the porch (Wall and window add nothing), although it may then be too small for FP.--Garrondo (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know, I was thinking about cuting image, but from my point of view this blue shutter and other things are typical for the atmosphere of Greece. But of course, this is just the matter your feeling... --Karel (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too bright and bad crop. --.ds m. 20:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice, but too many compromises in the composition: bench cut, arch cut. Also, the perspective should have been corrected. --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per dsm. The blacks in this photo aren't black. Severnjc (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oxbow Bend outlook in the Grand Teton National Park Edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2010 at 20:33:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Great composition, but too many flaws to promote. Visible posterization in the sky and lower-left water. Background is oddly unfocused, as though it went through alternating blur/sharpen cycles. The image loses a lot when viewed at full resolution. Severnjc (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I prefer the original version. This has slightly better white balance, but the clouds lost their three dimensional feeling. I guess they are now slightly overexposed. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:US Navy 051111-N-9362D-012 A U.S. Navy Sailor mans a .50 caliber machine gun mount on the Khawr Al Arnaya Oil Terminal (KAAOT) during sunset.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2009 at 17:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by US Navy - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Diaa abdelmoneim -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sunset makes the composition great, Machine gun is sharp, colors are beautiful.-- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info There's a dustspot to the left of the soldier's head. Wolf (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but that is really too much of military romance. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romantic! :D Diti the penguin — 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find this glorification of war simply disgusting. -- H005 23:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yet another sunset... The fact that there's a gun in front of it doesn't help. Kleuske (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 11:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Haven't we got enough A.S. armed forces pictures already? MartinD (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We have a lot because almost every professional photo taken by a US servicemember is automatically in the public domain, which is one of the biggest bars to getting quality images on the Commons. That said, this one just doesn't meet the 'value' bar for me. Severnjc (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per AngMoKio, H005, Kleuske, and MartinD. Yann (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Wolf (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oxbow Bend outlook in the Grand Teton National Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 18:40:11 (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) 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support White balance may be slightly off, but what a composition! --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - WOW --Pudelek (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice picture, but it does not WOW me. The things that would and in the background and partly obscured. Kleuske (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The background is stunning, sadly the foreground is too intrusive for me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Odd colours, small problems with quality, composition doesn't work for me. —kallerna™ 14:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colors look not natural, unsharp, quality is too bad --Simonizer (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree about the colors, they look a bit bleak. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MattiPaavola. --.ds m. 20:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Foreground is not that convincing, but IMO the background sufficiantly makes up for it. Nikopol (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MattiPaavola Je-str (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnatural colors. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice color but plants in foreground are too intrusives and image is blur (Focus is only on some branch on the righ of the pict). Olivier Jaulent (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture, and the foreground adds to the picture IMO. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support colors --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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