Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2010

File:Krankentransportwagen in Passau.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2010 at 21:42:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by High Contrast - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by High Contrast -- High Contrast (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High Contrast (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose better background would be nice. --Aktron (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I wouldn't say it's oversaturated. I believe the yellow and red of this vehicle have been chosen to be very bright (emergency vehicle) and with a Hight Contrast ^{pun intended}. Yet, I don't think it should be featured : it is technically sound, it is of encyclopedic value and interest, yet it is not stunning. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I know a lot of these cars here in Germany and I can assure: the colors aren't oversaturated and when I have the sun in contemplation the colours are quite lifelike. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. I did no additional retouching apart from cropping. --High Contrast (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good quality image, but nothing so speial for nomination to FP for me. --Karelj (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support 'Salright. Don't know if it's oversaturated, but it's kind of boring IMO, maybe it's the dark background. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is far from FP quality. --Elekhh (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hetpaardindegang (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is a bit distracting. LeavXC (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kohala coast at the Big Island of Hawaii from the air levels.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2010 at 16:08:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Support A stunning picture of a beautiful landscape.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flxwu (talk • contribs)

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mz1 - nominated by Mbz1 - edited by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The image was taken from a helicopter.
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the quality is too poor. The top gets more and more hazy, and I think the camera was bumped when this was taken. It's hard taking photos out of a helicopter's window. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK no worries, but the image has a great EV and is FP on English wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose what a great chance to illustrate the area. alas the point and shoot camera quality is imho not sufficient for fp. a reshoot seems unlikely but would be great if done with better equipment. could be something for the picture wishlist. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got the message.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just two opposes and you're withdrawing? It's got my Support. I've seen much crappier pictures make FP simply because they're technically flawless. Sometimes I think all the rules here distract from what really makes a good picture and that's not something you can define in such a rigid manner. --Calibas (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Calibas! This image was actually taken by my husband with his point-and-shot Nikon. Me with my Canon XTI sat on a different side, and I even did not see this place, leave alone take image. I read what you said about the image to my husband, and he asked me to thank you too. It's OK, if the image is not going to be FP on commons although, if it were, it would have been the only FP taken by my husband --Mbz1 (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct the "author" field on the file page and ask your husband to E-mail consent to permissions-commons. Then tag the file {{OTRS pending}}. Good picture, BTW. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done He was glad you liked the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:7BridgesDuluthMN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2010 at 22:47:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rapids and bridge near Lake Superior in Duluth, Minnesota

Info created by Jonathunder - uploaded by Jonathunder - nominated by Jonathunder -- Jonathunder (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me the bridge is out of focus. I'm not sure of the reason, but I don't like it--Miguel Bugallo 01:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too much blue, dull colors. Something a bit closer to this would be better I think. --Aktron (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, the other pic you mention is taken in fall, which obviously accounts for the reddish leaves ; second, IMHO your better pic is strongly oversaturated, whereas the present one is just natural. Here, the green patches of grass are brilliant green, as they should be, and not glow-in-the-dark-fluo-green. The foliage is a muted darker green, and the stones and water are in shades of pinkish and blueish grey. Not that a slight white balance tuning wouldn't be useful, I've not checked into that. But the dull colors argument doesn't make the cut. (did I say IMHO? No? Ok, here it is: IMHO). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is why i wrote "something a bit closer closer". It IS oversaturated and the green is unnatural, yeah. What I wanted to say is that the green in your picture - YES it IS brilliant - but it is the same green and the stones are the same grey all over the picture. The place is good but a different light might be much better. Fog might make it better (making it more hmm.. how to say that... "plastic?" even with these colors) as well as a sunny day (a picture of some similar valley taken at clear day was few days ago nominated). --Aktron (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just overcast from a cloudy day. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As Aktron. --Karelj (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeUseless.--Sammyday (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Fails point 5 or the bridge is badly shown. Grinatyou (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'Aurore Philippe Magnier Louvre MR3243.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2010 at 00:23:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me - Sculpture by Philippe Magnier (1647-1715) -- Jebulon (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it might be better with the natural or non-white background. Athyllis (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think, the natural background of the Cour Marly would be too distracting. IMO the white backgound is the best solution, not black, because of some dark parts of the statue. --Llez (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Llez --Paris 16 (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes you are right. There are many other statues is this place, and a masked photo was the best way to isolate the subject from an ugly and distractive background. If white was not the best choice, it is neutral anyway. Maybe I'll try an attempt with a sample of the main color of the real backgroung (something between ochre and sand)--Jebulon (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - Other background uploaded.--Jebulon (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well done! --Llez (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--It looks much better now. Grinatyou (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, much better now --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for this version --Cayambe (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is better. Athyllis (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's the 10th ... Congratulation --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you. Maybe the Panthéon will pass before ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much nicer BG. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Rally Finland 2010 - shakedown - Nasser Al-Attiyah 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2010 at 17:58:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo 17:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miguel Bugallo 17:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the previous one was better. --Elekhh (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the previous one was better, ~~but where is the previous one? I don't know it.~~ I only see this picture, if you wont to nominate other, you can do it--Miguel Bugallo 21:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see the previous one. Perhaps better. Perhaps too tight crop, I don't know. I want to nominate it--Miguel Bugallo 21:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know what happens, but I can not nominate it, perhaps the image was nominated previously--Miguel Bugallo 21:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images would have separately to be considered: or they are, or they are not, separately--Miguel Bugallo 21:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info -- Miguel, the previous one is already featured. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol :D --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Miguel Bugallo 20:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks professional. Athyllis (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support And that is only because I was off line for hollidays that I didn't support the previous one !--Jebulon (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Cool enough. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 19:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- I wonder if the people supporting this picture are aware that this very similar one is already featured. Nothing serious really, but it doesn't make sense to have both... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes Alvesgaspar...but WOW too... Rastrojo _(D•ES) 23:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose other one better. I think if another picture of the competition should be featured, it should be taken from another position, it should be different, that it's more unique. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Samo man playing war horn 20017864 edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2010 at 21:38:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Johan Theodorus Broekhuijse - edited, uploaded and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 21:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This image was provided by the Tropenmuseum for the ocassion of the GLAM wiki conference in Paris. it shows a Samo man playing a war horn. the Samo people are underrepresented on en:wiki yet, getting this picture featured helps to find others who can contribute information about them.
Support for high ev and historic significance PETER WEIS TALK 21:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{SSupport}}~~ For me there is noise, but the noise seems to me artistic--Miguel Bugallo 22:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 04:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, bad crop. Bad technical quality in general, even for a pic taken in the 70's. In my opinion, FP status is to notice the special qualities of a picture, not to make anthropological advertisements. Sorry for poor english, it needs a long discussion, but I have not the vocabulary...--Jebulon (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the image has not been cropped at large. so this might be more a question of general composition. i checked for rules of thirds which works well here. note that there is no information available on the technical equipment used to produce this image. neither camera model and used film nor scanner were mentioned on the source. a statement on technical quality can be difficult if these variables are unknown. feel free to write me a personal note in french/german so i can get your point. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I agree with Jebulon. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Jebulon. I retire the "support", and I think what I do--Miguel Bugallo 12:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having pictures like this and cherishing them is more important then having the next picture of the Taj Mahal, a fly or other critter. This is not an an "anthropological advertisement", it is because of this picture that we find that a whole people is not known in our Wikipedias. The notion that featured pictures is only because of the quality of a picture is wrong in principle. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But this picture is very grainy (better word than "noisy") IMO, whatever it shows. I must be very careful in using dangerous words, but a picture cannot be FP only because it shows something or somebody "exotic" for northern-western eyes... Sorry I do not want to hurt anybody... I hope you understand what I mean.--Jebulon (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. Athyllis (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GerardM. Elfalem (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this b&w photo seems that has no whites (but only greys) - and this can be corrected (it is a technical issue). It has a well balanced composition (nice aesthetically) and it is an educational subject. Ggia (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i'm not sure whether i get your point here. levels were adjusted, resulting in minimizing sheer black and white areas. the shirt of the samo man was slightly darkened via levels, resulting in increased contrasts in that particular area. overall the changes were rather subtle on this image. please let me know what kind of correction you would apply here. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking to the images.. using an image processing software.. I saw that applying some masks you can enhance this image.. Later on I will try to edit this image and apply a new version to demonstrate what I mean. But the image is good and nice.. it is not a comment to be used by somebody to vote oppose.. Ggia (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I uploaded an enhanced version of the original image.. I hope that you like it.. Ggia (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thank you very much for taking time creating and uploading this version. my attempt was to do a restoration and therefore change as little as possible. lighting up shadows on the head or the war horn itself at this extent was therefore out of the question. your version features enhanced contrasts which i did not see as part of the original photograph. both version have a right to exist - i see your version as an opportunity for printing and mine as an opportunity for those interested in the "original" photograph. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 07:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. Lycaon (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AshLin (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--This doesn't have the quality for a featured picture. Grinatyou (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose framing. --99of9 (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral prefer Ggia's because it has better contrast. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uva de playa (Coccoloba uvifera).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2010 at 21:11:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I like it. A shame those patches of white (burned) sky. Maybe you could make a smart adjustment? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your comments, I will take your advice. :) --The Photographer (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ rather bad repair job. filled in spots display with irregular patterns. seeing parts of a berry right in the middle of a leaf is disturbing. please use leaf texture here or go for other methods (in photoshop i would recommend using content aware fill, patch tool or copystamp). regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recommendation. Your comment is very useful, I found a free alternative to Content Aware. I'm a gimp user and would like to invite you. A hug. --The Photographer (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks better now, thanks for the gimp info. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 13:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, and not only because i am a GIMP user (newbie) too.--Jebulon (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough, but maybe overly sharp? --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you. I have uploaded another version with antialiasing. Smoothing has been created manually each edge separately, the change is visible only at high resolution and expand the image. --The Photographer (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Version antialiasing[edit]

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 19:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:JK-05L JUNIOR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2010 at 17:20:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Wolf (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality typical for Airwolf (excellent) but I think the cloud needs to be cropped out. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I like the cloud though its position is not the best. I think we would all look the other way if it was moved to the upper right corner... But I don't promise I will support, wait and see. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support I think I even like this one better. -- Wolf (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Better, but I think there is too much room in front of the plane (I think there should be almost equal amounts in front of and behind it). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support pref w/o the little cloud, also. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Continue, continue cropping. Now from the left and the right. Grinatyou (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Please don't, let the poor thing breathe! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys discuss it in private and let me know, once you've made up your minds. Then I'll make a crop accordingly and upload edit 2. Wolf (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination[reply]

Comment-- The two comments are not contradictory, although with the "please don't" I think Alvesgaspar is applying his "let the poor thing breath" too dogmatically. You can let the poor thing breath and also make the lateral crops to give the equilibrium that that photo is needing. You can also clone sky if needed. Grinatyou (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20101016 Agios Nikolaos Metoxi Batopediou Porto Lagos Vistonida Lake Rhodope Greece.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2010 at 08:30:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I've had a doubt about the spots in the sky: birds or dust spots? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these are birds / some dust spots (because of the sensor) has already been removed. Ggia (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice, good visual impact... symmetry, perspective... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the vertical lines in the half left of the picture/bridge are slightly tilted towards right. I think also that for the size of the picture and the camera used the photo lacks a bit of definition. Sting (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the photo is made by stitched images. Ggia (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment minor tilt observed the the left side and fixed.. thanks for the notice. the image has been updated. Ggia (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Awesome! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! The bridge leads to a well placed subject! LeavXC (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Strong support I like it. Thomas888b (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice, but fewer clouds would've been nicer. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info This quiet place belongs to the monastery of Vatopedi. Since 2008 a real-estate scandal is taking place in Greece. [1] The monastery of Vatopedi exchanged less valuable, rural land of Vistonida (this area around the lake belongs to Vatopedi monastery) with state-owned valuable land [2]. These land swaps are often a discussion in the mass media. They say that this land-swap cost to the Greek-state 100m euros. [3] Ggia (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geo-politics are interesting, but a sunnier day still would be nicer. ;-) Is the cloudiness supposed to be symbolic? --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 22:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Athyllis (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. Grinatyou (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inspiring. Flawless composition.--Laveol (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Androz (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--თეკა (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Butterfly 7650.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2010 at 16:09:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by gangulybiswarup - uploaded by gangulybiswarup - nominated by gangulybiswarup -- Biswarup Ganguly 16:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biswarup Ganguly 16:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment -- Please try to identify the biological species. Without it, there is little chance of promotion here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy and soft. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Us The High Fin Sperm Whale--Miguel Bugallo 21:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- As Alvesgaspar suggests, this is Blue tiger or Tirumala limniace taken at Science City, Kolkata.-- Biswarup Ganguly 01:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have adjusted the category -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Mostly ok --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Virgen de Quito Panecillo 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2010 at 10:36:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Virgin of Quito, Ecuador. Statue made of pieces of aluminium, standing on El Panecillo (small piece of bread) some 200 m above the city. Altitude: 3017 m a.s.l. in the Andes. See tourists on the tower for scale.
Support -- Cayambe (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one.--Mile (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This picture benefits from a crop from below removing the wall. It also helps because it is too tight from above. Grinatyou (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- below part of this photo good provide scale --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a excuse for a bad choice. Scale can be given in a caption. Notice how the bad framing doesn't give proper emphasis to the statue but to the base instead. Dixi. Grinatyou (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JFitch (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please vote just once --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Miramella irena 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2010 at 14:19:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bjoertvedt - uploaded by Bjoertvedt - nominated by Bjoertvedt -- Bjoertvedt (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bjoertvedt (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately the head is out of focus. your shot lacks overall sharpness and the composition is disturbed by the blade in front of the cricket. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 14:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

Image:Kuba-Auto-1.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2010 at 16:36:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by hastdutoene Classic beauty represents the morbid charme of La Habana
Support -- Hastdutoene (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Blown highlights. Tropical sun + the shadow of a tree and one has to have magic powers to make a camera work properly. Grinatyou (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The building and the sky are severely blown. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: massive overexposure --Elekhh (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Liocarcinus vernalis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2010 at 23:22:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by -- ~~The High Fin Sperm Whale~~ 23:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC) IdLoveOne (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lighting is not the best. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please state why? Comments like, "bad crop" or "lighting not the best" don't give any indication on how to fix it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- Sorry, in this case I thought that the glares from the flash (or whatever light source) would be obvious. Someting I forgot: let the poor thing etc. :) Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe you should make a template, something like Let the poor thing breathe. But you think this crop is too tight? It should be easy to fix, since it's on a black background. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lol! Yes, I think that the crop is too tight and agree that is easy to fix. But poor lighting is a much worse sin to redeem... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - One more point: if you consider the lighting so bad here, Alvesgaspar, why did you promote it on QIC? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nah. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs white balancing. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{withdraw}}~~

Aww, I was gonna support a white balanced version. =( --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really like it you can always nominate yourself (just slash out my name in the 'nominated by' part and replace it with yours). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, ok, it'll lump some of my noms together, but w/e. Thanks! --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info Expanded the background. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 2[edit]

Info Expanded BG and white balanced. The WB I think raises the brightness and makes the flash less harsh. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support An improvement to an already excellent image. Well done! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just hope it has enough "breathing room" --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Wrong WB. Lycaon (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Can you do that when I'm the one "nominating" this? --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mrs Ples Face.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2010 at 17:02:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by José Braga - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus

- The photographic quality is medium, but the subject is exceptional. -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AshLin (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThomas888b (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportTo be or not to be...Alas, poor Yorrick...--Jebulon (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 22:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral would support a non-gradient version with solid black background. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have several views that I would put together on a single image on a black background. As soon as they are processed.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would also prefer a version of transparent background (or solid black). Ggia (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think I will hold support for this and wait for that version. Jonathunder (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare object --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Милан Јелисавчић (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I also would support a transparent or solid black background version. --Phyrexian (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Papilio rumanzovia 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2010 at 12:56:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Light not ideal. Subject not detached from background. Grinatyou (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background too dark (one of the major drawbacks of using a flash for macro). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canadair CL-415 Kroatien 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2010 at 19:02:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Jebulon (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some extra sky cloned above and below might be nice. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support A bit dark, but nicely done addition on the sky. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ As a certain person would say: "let the poor thing breathe". However, all that needs to be done is clone some sky. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question unfortunately I do not know how to make the image bigger, so you can clone the sky. Will you not do that, I would be grateful --Böhringer (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try, but I am notoriously bad with image editors. Would you like me to re-upload this one or upload another version? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - All right, I did it. Do you want me to upload it over your picture or make a separate file? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - nein keine separate File over my picture bitte, D A N K E --Böhringer (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done, so Support. Apart from the tight crop it is an excellent photo. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent capture, very sharp, nice colours, high encyclopedic value. --Cayambe (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, very good quality. --Karelj (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is begging a lateral crop. Grinatyou (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit dark but otherwise nearly perfect. -- Felix König ✉ 17:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting. --99of9 (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frankfurt Am Main-Paulsplatz mit Paulskirche-Ansicht vom Domturm-20101024.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2010 at 20:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mylius - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Mylius -- Mylius (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankfurt on the Main: Paulsplatz (St. Paul's Square) with Paulskirche (St. Paul's Church) as seen from the spire of Frankfurt Cathedral
Panorama of 3 images taken with Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II and Canon EF 70-200mm 4.0 L IS USM at f6.3, stitched with PanoramaStudio 2 Pro
Support -- Mylius (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but it might need cropping to frame the subject better. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Athyllis (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Framing is not convincing: crop on the left is hurting, while on the right becomes uninteresting. --Elekhh (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dito dontworry (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Yes, the subject is not detached from the rest. A more convenient position will be needed. Grinatyou (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Framing should be better. With this angle of view, the object is hidden in some places. — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 17:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GreaterNottingham-map.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2010 at 20:33:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is the image so fuzzy and pixelated as if it were softened and upsampled? I also don't see the interest in overlaying those grey shades on the urban areas. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost 100% of the people in the world know about the Paris - the famous French capital. Almost 99 % of the people don't know how big is Paris actually...There are equally spread misleading numbers from 2 milions to 8 millions inhabitants. These two gray shapes gives the answer - in this case about Nottingham. First, these two gray shapes presents what is the difference between the two numbers that are connected with the name of Nottingham - 249,000 and 666,000. Second, these two gray shapes gives the proportion in geometrical way which makes the matter far clearer. And third, these two gray shapes show us the connection between the area and the three most important lines of this place - Trent River, M1 motorway and the county border. I think this scheme is of a high educational value. As for the so called fuzzy background, it is intentionally because it is of secondary importance, even firstly I think the shapes and the three lines to be on white background. --MrPanyGoff (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment -- Drawing a good map is not an easy task! Depending on its purpose, you should start by deciding exactly what kind of information you want to represent, which area is to be covered and in what scale. Only after it is possible to make a rational choice of the specific categories of information to depict and which symbology to use. In the present case, and according to your own comments, most of the information depcited in the background is superfluous and only serves to affect, in a negative way, the legibility of the map. On the other hand the polygons, lines and legend you have added lack the sophistication and accuracy we would expect from a featured illustration. One question: why not add a graphical scale of distances instead of the vectors? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I always found the default color scheme of Open Street Map too pale, but this puts even more grey on the usual bleak background; compare how I brightened my home village (previous versions are in history). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerusalem Oesterreichisches Hospiz BW 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2010 at 07:59:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inserting composition IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mbz1 Athyllis (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the sharpness, but the cross covering up the horizon and slightly touching the tower is a bit disturbing. --Elekhh (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Elekhh. The crop seems a little tight in the lower left corner too. Great details though! LeavXC (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Failed composition. As was said above, just letting sky be seen from below the cross would detach it from the background. It is tight from below. Let the lower line, and not the top one, of the wall be the one meeting the lower left corner and you solve both problems. Grinatyou (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juntan 4501.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2010 at 09:54:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Doctoroftcm (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per --MASHAUNIX 16:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If the quality were higher I'd think this was interesting enough for a Strong Support. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps a little bit overprocessed, but nice composition. -- MJJR (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Does anyone know the meaning of the symbol on the rock? --Lošmi (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The character on the rock is a Traditional Chinese character '壽' (Pinyin:shòu), it means longevity. The hill is like a turtle, and the turtle is the symbol of longevity in Chinese culture. --Doctoroftcm (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks for the explanation. --Lošmi (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info There is a bit too much of uninteresting clouds Richardprins (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Excellent quality, and I love the composition. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Paris 16 (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Very nice indeed. Grinatyou (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greens look overprocessed to me, and then artificial.--Jebulon (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Populus angustifolia CO.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2010 at 23:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created/uploaded/nominated by Calibas (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Calibas (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great color and composition. Steven Walling 01:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per mr walling. is there an uncropped/nondownsampled version available? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful colors! --Schnobby (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this colours --Llez (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ccw tilt --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're going to have to tell that to the gently-sloping hills, not much I can do. --Calibas (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Athyllis (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose change to oppose. Nice colors but too fuzzy. Athyllis (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture of the autumn colours. --Elekhh (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Popular as this is, I don't like the fuzziness of the trees, grass and.. almost everything. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great shot and colors, but sadly the trees and grass are too fuzzy (per Athyllis). Sorry. LeavXC (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 19:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good work — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Thomisus onustus with Apis mellifera.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2010 at 08:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Butko -- Butko (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Butko (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good action shot!--Mbz1 (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 20:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Отличное качество и редкий момент. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support хорошо --Mile (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ницца подробно и действий Athyllis (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare shot --Schnobby (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A good picture but not comparable, imo, with the existing FPs of the same type (please check our gallery here). I wonder why a smaller aperture was not chosen by the "Creative program (biased toward depth of field)" -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, considering it was taken with an Olympus point-and-shoot. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moonstar.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2010 at 12:35:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mulazimoglu - uploaded by Mulazimoglu - nominated by Mulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small (0,88 Mp only) and poor quality --George Chernilevsky 13:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fronton Panthéon Paris Dome chapiteaux.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2010 at 15:31:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me , architecture by Soufflot, sculpture by David d'Angers-- Jebulon (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please have a look on the file description page for informations about all the symbols and persons visible on the relief-- Jebulon (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{o}} Support Crop too tight around the edges (I'm beginning to sound like Alvesgaspar, aren't I?). Again, this is easy to fix with a bit of cloning. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to do so.--Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done . Looks better indeed, thanks for comment.--Jebulon (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interesting, almost surreal the effect of the asymmetrically appearing dome as result of the perspective correction you applied... in educational terms confusing, but creative. --Elekhh (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry no. The perspective correction was very soft, only concerning the leaning columns left and right. I was not "just in front" of the monument, and that is enough. I wanted to show a part of the columned gallery at the base of the dome, and it was one of my very precise intentional educative point of view (look at the protective nests around the capitals). As it is very high, and as I was very close, one or two steps right were enough for this "effect", which is not strange, but only optical and due to physics rules. Thanks for review.--Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the explanation. Than it must have been an asymmetrical crop. Still feels strange. --Elekhh (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose think it would be better if taken from another angle, some figures missing description. Athyllis (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see explanation above about "other angle". If I were in front (centered) of the monument, one couldn't see an interesting part of the dome. About descriptions : Please read file page. The figures without descriptions are anonymous : soldiers of different arms (infantry, cavalry or artillery), and students of the Ecole Polytechnique. I didn't "square" them not to be more confusing. But thanks for comments anyway--Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support very nice photo and has high EV --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer more central composition. Tower seems strange. --Mile (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like the composition though it would probably be better in a portrait aspect ratio, with more of the columns visible. Support anyway. Maybe I'm becoming softer with age. Should I worry about it? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for support. The purpose was to show especially the pediment (with explanations), the Dome and the lantern. It is funny that the debate is on the composition, I was not aware of this (maybe because I know the whole monument very well, and it is not a question to me...) Really interesting and enriching I'm not sure everybody agree you're becoming softer , but I'm sure you are not so old. Important is to stay young in mind ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thomas888b (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this subject would be better seen from a position 10m higher in the air than your camera was. I know that may be difficult to achieve, but I think that's what would make it featurable. --99of9 (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Funny challenge !! Do you know the place ? . If I want to do that, I have to ask a permission for taking a picture from the main window of the personnal office of the Mayor of the Fifth Arrondissement of Paris. But why not, at the end ?...--Jebulon (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not really featurable : this image is not so different to the others images of the Pantheon.--Sammyday (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment must an image be different to be featurable ? --Jebulon (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So why this image must be featurable if she's not "special" ? The subject is not unique, the photo not so "remarquable" to my eyes (sorry for my bad english language).--Sammyday (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Odd composition. If cutting the building was to isolate it there are clever ways to do it. If it was to show a detail it is not clear what is it, the dome or the frontispiece? Grinatyou (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The composition is not odd. I tried to make something different. lol...--Jebulon (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Grintanyou. It looks like the dome is sliding off like a melting wedding cake; also, a closer shot of the tympanum in the pediment would be educational concerning identities of the sculptures but not this view.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but I think this kind of comments are a bit disdainful and too much peremptory in my opinion. I would be very happy to have a look on what the three last new reviewers and opponents are able to do here before assuming so modestly...Some could sometimes open the files at high resolution, or read the description page, maybe. Or have a look on the guidelines. It could help.--Jebulon (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your suggestions but I don't see how any of them address the off-balance, poor composition, or lack of focus in the picture that detract from any EV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again...--Jebulon (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the angle of view is a good idea, providing a sense of the depth of the building. Rama (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Original Barnstar Hires.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2010 at 14:12:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Antonu - uploaded by Antonu - nominated by Antonu -- Antonu (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Antonu (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tips and irregular areas, could be SVG. I'm sorry --The Photographer (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a great image. It is nice to look at. Thomas888b (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per The Photographer, and I don't know why we should feature a barnstar used only on the Wiki. Sure, it's used all over the place, but there is no educational value here. Sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support lol --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As The Photographer and Whale -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, technical and no-educational-value-in-FPC reasons.Furthermore, I really dont know what a "barnstar" is in real, and why it is used as an award in Wikimedia... --Jebulon (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Placid death.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2010 at 20:10:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support spoooooky. --Hetpaardindegang (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I predict a probable nice controversy...--Jebulon (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Awesome image - please add more detail to it's commons page. Where was this taken? When? Is there a related wikipedia page? Scewing (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a good photo. Maybe add what the is of.--User:Thomas888b (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2010 (GMT)

Comment Info on the Guanajuato Mummies at [[4]]

Comment Was this taken at Museo de las Momias de Guanajuato?

Comment Yes. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Athyllis (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nah. Lycaon (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 19:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You meant Support, right? --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting concept. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AshLin (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- A good choice to make it BW. All that matters here is texture and colour doesn't add anything to the image. Grinatyou (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All is good (idea, compo, BW) except the focus IMO. Only a very small part of the fingers is sharp.--Jebulon (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Us Lycaon and Jebulon--Miguel Bugallo 21:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Miguel, I would appreciate it if you vote within the designated voting period, not after. It is especially unpolite to revert your own edit where you akcnowledge the fact that your vote was late. How can such an action be interpreted? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTo all who supported this picture ;o). This picture is a winner in an international photography contest to be exhibited at the Queens Museum Of Art in New York [[5]]. Thanks for your support! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a friend. Thanks, I don't understand what you say, but I thik that you say good things (If it was bud things, please in gl:, es: or pt:) --Miguel Bugallo 20:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your last observation demonstrates the respect that you have by the community: Everything is valid--Miguel Bugallo 20:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Sarychev Peak.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2010 at 19:01:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - edited, uploaded and nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know the quality is poor, but this is a special picture of a very rare event. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Poor Quality Thomas888b (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2010 (GMT)(Updated 10:28, 01 November 2010 (GMT))
I'm not sure there can be any exeptions to the poor quality rule really. -- Thomas888b (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2010 (GMT)
- Support I actually support this because I find it interesting too. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Derivative of File:Sarychev Peak Volcano erupts on Matua Island.jpg; it is not clear to me what was done to it, except increasing the file size. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the saturation was reduced. --99of9 (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should not need to triple the file size, I think. This is the fifth version of the same photo in Category:Sarychev Peak. What is the use? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tripled the size? And noty all of them in the category are variations of each other. this and this are both separate from this photo. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are all the same, except for rotation; you made a 2 Mb file out of 0.6 Mb. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per The High Fin Sperm Whale. Awesome capture! LeavXC (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Pic Thomas888b (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2010 (GMT)

~~Your second vote - what will it be? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Support –hover Fly | chat? 19:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great!! --Karelj (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as The High Fin Sperm Whale Athyllis (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Despite the obvious quality issues, mitigated by the high EV and beauty. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, overprocessed, unnecessarily poor quality. The original image from NASA has some noise, but it's not nearly as apparent as it is here. And I'm not meaning to imply High Fin Sperm Whale did anything underhand here, but if this does pass, I think the uploader of that image (TonyBallioni) deserves some credit too. This would set a bad precedent otherwise. --Avenue (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nominator accepted poor quality, but it is a rare occasion, and common sence say that it should be allowed. Thomas888b (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2010 (GMT)
  - My point was that we could easily produce a somewhat better quality image by starting with NASA's image, instead of the version from Flickr; i.e. that the quality is poorer than it needs to be. I agree that we can accept lower quality than usual given the rare circumstances, but not that we should accept lower quality than can easily be achieved. --Avenue (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question Are you going to make it better then? --Thomas888b (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2010 (GMT)
      - Well, there's no obligation for a reviewer to do so, and I think the issue should be pretty clear anyway. But I had started doing so before your query, and I've finally avoided distractions long enough to get something sorted out. Here's my version: File:Sarychev Volcano edit.jpg. I'm sure others here would do it differently, and probably better, but I think this is an improvement on the nominated version, most clearly in the sea to the left of the eruption column. --Avenue (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no reason to reward a bloated file after substandard processing with featured image status. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena

File:Trictena.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2010 at 18:32:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by G. W. Irohawk- restorated, uploaded and nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral could you please name the page within the book? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Citron (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you also upload the unedited version for compare? thanks in advance. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 17:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{s}}~~ Neutral--IdLoveOne (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 99 is right, I love these but the person who made this version accidentally cropped out part of the main moth's left wing. =\ --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor framing. --99of9 (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose us 99of9. --Miguel Bugallo 01:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pergamon, Turkey.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2010 at 12:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by Mulazimoglu - nominated by Mulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is very unnatural result of photo processing and educational value is too low. Sorry --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of too extensive image manipulation -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tři turistické značky v Hornopožárském lese.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2010 at 08:52:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Juan de Vojníkov - uploaded by Juan de Vojníkov - nominated by Juan de Vojníkov -- Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does this really have any educational value? Thomas888b (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI thought most of the pictures are illustrations for Wikipedia. It might be a good illustration for an article about tourist signs in Central Europe. What kind of "educational value" you need?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing featurable here, sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is this supposed to be? --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentTrail blazings on the tree used in the Czech Republic.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak support Not bad, though not very clear what the subject is just from looking for most people who've never hiked there. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above--Miguel Bugallo 01:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Já bych to poslal Klubu českých turistů. Tam to ocení daleko lépe. :-) --Karelj (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Fails point 5. Grinatyou (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not "traditional" on "Commons", but I like these pictures showing something different... And this one is technically very good, furthermore.--Jebulon (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alanyacastleeast.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2010 at 07:46:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by ozgurmulazimoglu - nominated by ozgurmulazimoglu -- 212.156.67.30 07:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 212.156.67.30 07:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Please log in. --V-wolf (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excessive use of sharpening tool makes a grainy and unnatural look, and it still is not sharp. --V-wolf (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: over sharpening, over saturated, unnatural colors, dark parts without details --Ggia (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lampes decorees Neapolis.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2010 at 13:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Habib.mhenni — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info I uploaded the original file from my digital camera (not upsampled, I took the photo behind the glass display case). — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 15:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent educational value, and good composition. This is a good shot given the circumstances, but perhaps not a FP. Perhaps you should try Commons:Valued images instead? Regards, --Kjetil_r 20:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ~~I'll try~~ it's done

Done

— Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 15:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor image quality, due to artifacts, and despite the excellent composition (image upsampled?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teplické skalní město (Wekelsdorfer Felsen) - Skalní chrám (Felsendom).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2010 at 14:07:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the sunlit areas are overexposed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whole picture (including overexposed parts) looks natural, you would see the same effect in reality, because the eyes can't distinguish the whole range of intensities. What you ask for is HDR, which is unsuitable in this case, besides, the whole point is to reveal the beauty of contrasts and reflections. Too bad the picture isn't bigger. I strongly recommend geotagging it. --Alex:D (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added location --Pudelek (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support some quality issues, but what a place!--Mbz1 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As The High Fin Sperm Whale and a quite ordinary picture. Athyllis (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Most of it is soft, has blown highlights. Grinatyou (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fixed the overexposed and bad contrast in this version. --The Photographer (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a great pic and just because some of it is overexposed is no reason to not make it FP. A candidate shouldn't be voted for just on its technical quality, but for its subject as well. --Flxwu (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced version

Support Much better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, don't see what's special with this. Athyllis (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:House Sparrow mar08.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2010 at 14:52:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fir0002 - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trachemys (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small, sadly. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strongly agree that it's too bad, it's adorable and HQ. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suricata.suricatta.6865.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2010 at 11:03:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Olaf Leillinger - uploaded by Olaf Leillinger - nominated by Thomas888b -- Thomas888b (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thomas888b (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, Thomas, but this image is only 1.4 MP. Apart from that, quite excellent. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's too small --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support I like it, I doubt enough people would support it to un-FPX, but the quality's good. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baldung Hexen 1508 kol.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2010 at 03:30:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hans Baldung Grien c. 1508 - uploaded by Historiograf - nominated by IdLoveOne -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Happy halloween too !! --Jebulon (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - --IdLoveOne (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- :D Join to the Sabath ;) 22:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  - euh.. No, thanks for invitation... I have some photos to review, tonight... Next year, maybe ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of Lausanne-IMG 4771.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2010 at 09:41:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Seal of Lausanne, made by Antoine Bovard in 1525. Made for the combourgeoisie treaty between Lausanne, Bern and Fribourg signed on 7 December 1525. On display at the Musée historique de Lausanne, lent by Lausanne municipal archive. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 22:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality and high ev. but please be so kind as to fix the white lines in the background. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, done. Rama (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support The edges are a bit strong, think you can blur 'em a little? --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why aren't they the same size? --99of9 (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect more and more strongly that the printed seal was not made using this precise device, but a duplicate. They are next to each other in the display case, tough. Rama (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Background should be transparent --Милан Јелисавчић (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moss macro.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2010 at 01:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bryan.calloway - uploaded by Bryan.calloway - nominated by Bryan.calloway -- Bryan.calloway (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bryan.calloway (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but 1. it's not identified, 2. to small, 3. flare, and 4. odd blur (close moss is sharp, then goes OOF, then back in). Sorry (a good start at macro though, better than my first ones). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per The High Fin Sperm Whale.If only the flare/blur wasn't there... LeavXC (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: 1 megapixel image, should be at least 2 - Ggia (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bamberger Dom BW 18.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2010 at 08:25:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oppose The lighting isn't sufficient in some areas
Info created - uploaded - nominated -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Middle part of the "Kichgattendorfer Altar" at Bamberg cathedral
Oppose-- Looks soft, and maybe needs some level adjustments. Grinatyou (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the two sculptures to the right are more dark comparing to the one in the left. I left an image note on the image. Probably needs some levels adjustments. Ggia (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I had only the available light. I made photographs at three different exposures and mixed them with "tufuse" to eliminate the differrent illumination. I tried now to get the right part slightly brighter. But the colours are not so good on the right side. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Quality's fair, but the metalwork on top is slightly blotchy, other than that and the sort of depressing expressions on the statues I like this. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erithacus rubecula -Netherlands-8.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2010 at 15:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Arjan Haverkamp - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trachemys (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition, lighting, and DOF, but it needs geocoding. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Geocoding added. --Trachemys (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this is a brilliant shot. Bjoertvedt (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a nice bird, and picture! -- Ra'ike T C 19:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Elekhh (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job! LeavXC (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very nice. --Avenue (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice bird... --LutzBruno (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 22:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Timetoday (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

File:Grubenlampe, Halde Rheinpreußen, Blaue Stunde, 2010-10-09, I.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2010 at 19:21:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten, distortions correction by Niabot. The mining lamp (30 meters high, made by Otto Piene) on the Halde Rheinpreußen (Moers, North-Rhine Westfalia, Germany) during the blue hour, at right the sunset. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detail of the subject's not great, but the technique and timing are. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A nice picture but not exceptional imo. Once again I call the attention to the quality and detail of Diliff's night photographs, here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so here I should oppose because of „not Archaeodontosaurus resolution und quality“ or what? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that Alvesgaspar likes more light to the dark parts.. IMO the dark parts of the image support the form of the Grubenlampe. I mean that the dark parts of the image drops the attention to the Grubenlampe. Ggia (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then he should write that und shouldn't compare pictures of a Wikipedia recreational photographer with photos which were stitched with images taken with (f***ing) expensive cameras. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar comments to (recently) Alvesgaspar (concerning comparing work of other users) you can read here [6] in this nomination: [7]. Probably this issue should be discussed in the talk page.. Personally I find no-sense comparing a user work with another user.. This kind of comparison can be made ie. when we have the same subject photographed by different users under different lighting condition etc.. Ggia (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a serious misunderstanding about the goal of FPC and the evaluation criteria. Two important notes: first, we assess images here, not photographers. When I referred to Diliff's pictures, I was not comparing authors or even their creations as a whole, but just giving examples of excellence in certain classes (panos or night shots). In the present case, other very good examples exist of night pictures, e.g. this one; second, it should be irrelevant for assessment purposes what kind of camera was used, either a point-and-shoot or a f**ing expensive one. The goal of FPC is to identify "the best Commons has to offer". Finally, I want to emphasize once more that it is the priviledge of the reviewer to use whatever kind of arguments or examples he wishes to support his honest opinion, provided he remains within scope and addresses the picture, not the author. For the second time, Ggia suggests to start a discussion on this issue. Please go ahead! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no misunderstanding from my point of view. I already wrote I suppose that Alvesgaspar likes more light to the dark parts... From the Arc Triomphe image I understand also this: that you like the image to have light in the dark parts. As I wrote above.. the dark parts of the image IMO works here creatively.. they drop the attention directly to the to Grubenlampe... this is also why I support the image.. because the dark parts of the image.. are not flaws. I understand that you consider Diffs photos examples of excellence.. but this is your opinion.. all the featured images of commons are examples of some kind of excellence. Comparing Arc Triomphe image with this image has no sense.. these are two different images (subject) and they have different lighting conditions. It has sense to compare an image with another image the same subject (ie. with same or different lighting conditions). Ggia (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good for me. Rastrojo _(D•ES) 22:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice colors --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Upper Yosemite fall with reflection 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2010 at 19:51:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1-- Mbz1 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Slaunger, I see what you talking about. Please give me some time to check with originals and to fix if necessary. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deal. --Slaunger (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Excellent composition, but can't support until errors are fixed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info the error was fixed. Slaunger, I am afraid the note you added is gone. It happens because every time I have to fix something I work with the original psd format panorama, and then, when I crop it, it has a slightly different crop. So here for the convince is the version you reviewed and found error.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know the annotations gets mixed up when the pixel size changes, so no problem. The "cut" tree has improved. There are still some oddities concerning softness in the same region. I guess it is due to stitching between two photos having quite different focal distances, but it is really not a big deal nor a showstopper for me. --Slaunger (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the geocode. Are you sure it is correct? I cannot locate the water body in the front of the photo? Is that because it is a seasonal lake, which just is not there in the satelite photos? I am also a bit confused as to the direction you are looking in? I recommend clarifying that by adding a heading to the geocode. If it is a seasonal body of water it is perhaps worthwhile to elaborate a little on the file page description. That reminds me: Do you know the Geolocator tool. I only realized how cool and easy to work with that is recently. With a few clicks you get a complete {{Location}} template including heading, size of the area etc., really cool and easy to use.

Finally, I realize the photos metadata are lost in the stitching process. Could you add some details about equipment, number of photos used, other general conditions on the file page as a substitute for the missing EXIF? It adds value and informative content. --Slaunger (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. I added an approximate heading. Please refine it if you know better. Very nice photo. --Slaunger (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since fixed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--I fail to see how this image complies with point 5. Grinatyou (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I please ask you what point 5 you have in mind? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice. --Avenue (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zygaena filipendulae 03.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2010 at 14:43:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bjoertvedt - uploaded by Bjoertvedt - nominated by Bjoertvedt -- Bjoertvedt (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bjoertvedt (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the beetles are out of focus, and the macro bar is very high. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "macro bar"? Bjoertvedt (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info -- That is the level of exigence for macrophotography. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which means what? ;-) 83.109.105.198 16:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What they are trying to say is that we already have many very very very good photographs of insects featured, and thus new insects have to be at least as good as those we have already featured. Thus even a single defect may be sufficient to reject an image. --99of9 (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...In other words most users here expect very, very, very high quality, as in large, very sharp/properly stacked, no over or underexposure, nothing cut out, a good amount of space around the subject, good framing and interesting composition.. No way of being too critical when discerning if a bug photo you took is good enough to pass here. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, HighFinSpermWhale! Is that good custom to vote against featuring - as the only person - and than present the result yourself as "rejected"? I know quiet a few Wikis where that would have got you into some real deep water, to say it the least... Wondering, Bjoertvedt (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Bjoertvedt, HighFin has done the right thing. If after 5 days of nomination there are no support votes other than the nominator, the nomination is declined. This template is the outcome. --99of9 (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ballet dancer.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2010 at 08:05:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by aNdrzej cH. - uploaded by Arteyu - nominated by Arteyu -- Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 08:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 08:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small (0,67 Mp only), has poor quality and bad white balance. Sorry --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Agraulis vanillae 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2010 at 12:55:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- The plant is a Lantana camara -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 02:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Timetoday 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Boletus chrysenteron (Red Cracking Bolete).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2010 at 22:28:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral would support a solid black background version. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imo it's very good that we haven't always the same withe or black reworked and unnaturally backgrounds. I wouldn't change it. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment applying a uniform background like grey/white/black gives a more professional look to the items than a "home brew" light setting. it sure is a question of personal taste. if performing a solid version one should as well consider a transparent version, granting ultimate reuse options. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the arrangement, you could've maybe aligned them. The shadows are strange, must be multiple sources of light or reflections and it's too fluorescent-looking. A scale of some sort would help too. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butterfield graphometer img 2601.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 08:34:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Butterfield Graphometer fitted with a compass, on display at Toulon Naval museum. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose suffers from flashlight, has to much colour noise in it, lacks of sharpness and focus. the masking is not very convincing if looking closer on the edges. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danube in Ritopek, Serbia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2010 at 02:57:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded by Lošmi - nominated by Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thomas888b (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO the sky looks a little bit artificial. Ggia (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice location, poor details, strange colors --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. --Mile (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality issues, looks like fake sky. Athyllis (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Agree with Carschten and Athyllis. I also add the almost symmetrical composition and the geometric distortion/tilt. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sky (look my comment above), per {Alvesgaspar, Carschten and Athyllis}. Ggia (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I chose to nominate this picture for several reasons. The most important one is because its informative value, ie, infrastructure, vegetation, agruculture, and more information that one gets observing small details. This picture transports the viewer to the location. Photographically speaking, yes, it could be better, but you would have to wait for days and days and days for wheather conditions to improve. However, considering the circumstances and the objective of the image, which is to document and inform, I think that the picture is featurable. This is one instance where the functional aspect of the image overides aesthetical concerns. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, I didn't expect to see one of mine here. Thanks for the nomination, Tomas! As for the sky, I made some denoising and maybe cloning on some overexposed areas (don't remember exactly, I would have to find originals) — but that's pretty much as the sky was on that day. The quality may not be the best, but all I had was awesome view and simple camera :) --Lošmi (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bjoertvedt (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great view with a high encyclopedic value! But because of some quality issues (especially the blurry horizon) unfortunately just not good enough for FP. -- MJJR (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 17:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FullMoon2010.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2010 at 12:49:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by grevera - uploaded by grevera - nominated by grevera -- Grevera (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Grevera (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ A bit noisy and unsharp (looks like an oversharpened blur). And as I recall, the moon is grey, not red. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Problems corrected. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One can see more detail than on previously featured File:Full Moon Luc Viatour.jpg, but this still looks oversharpened to me, with structures that probably are not really there; the noise is starting to look like some kind of raster. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bjoertvedt (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Timetoday (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:ISS View of the Southwestern USA.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2010 at 10:10:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created by the ISS Expedition 24 crew - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info View of the south-western United States and Pacific Ocean.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I fail to see how this complies with point 5. Grinatyou (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, but I don't see quality here. The image is fuzzy and lacking details. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I am sure that we have similar pictures of much higher quality. GerardM (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PopoAmeca.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2010 at 02:02:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by AlejandroLinaresGarcia - uploaded by AlejandroLinaresGarcia - nominated by Erick1984 -- Erick1984 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Erick1984 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is this image special ?What is the value ?--Sammyday (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sky mirror, Kensington Gardens, London.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2010 at 20:27:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gaius Cornelius - uploaded by Gaius Cornelius - nominated by Gaius Cornelius -- Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture isn't clear and it is dark. -- Yiyi (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thomas888b (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Useless~~.--Sammyday (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is "useless"? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand the interest of this picture.--Sammyday (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Mirror is a popular work by a famous artist: Anish Kapoor. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i didn't know this artist. I changed my vote.

Neutral I think it has a great educational value. I had no idea there was a large mirror in Kensington Gardens – Now I have. I'm a novice regarding image quality though, so I won't poll. --V-wolf (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I agree with V-wolf on the high EV; I'm rather astonished that someone would call this useless. Still, I can't quite support as the crop doesn't work for me. (Specifically, I'd suggest cropping out the distracting element at the lower edge and perhaps some of the sky for a thirds composition.) Jonathunder (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - first version. HaTe (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to both. The clouds sort of help the composition as far as the mirror, though the mirror would've probably looked nice with just sky or clouds like you have. I just wish you'd snapped this at a brighter moment because what would've been an incredibly interesting image is just sort of drab to me. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info Slightly lightened and cropped Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this version. Jonathunder (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - first version. HaTe (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - first version. MirandaAdramin (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Udo Jürgens - Der Soloabend 2010 (14).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 09:39:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Steindy - uploaded by Steindy - nominated by Steindy -- Steindy (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Steindy (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp, out of focus, disturbing yellow line in background. downscaled just to meet the guideline. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peter Weis. --Cayambe (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File: The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2010 at 14:45:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aude? - uploaded by Aude - nominated by Jo Iro -- Jo Iro (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jo Iro (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info was candidate once before --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This version already featured --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: another version of it is already featured, see George --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ardea alba; 3 chicks, Morro Bay Heron Rookery 2 - by Mike Baird.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 16:47:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mike Baird - uploaded by Editor at Large - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trachemys (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition and quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportShame of branch in foreground, but very good !--Jebulon (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thomas888b (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support cute.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful picture --Schnobby (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition, well done photo. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support even the branches in the foreground look nice (aesthetically). Ggia (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BarackObama2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 22:36:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jonathunder - uploaded by Jonathunder - nominated by Jonathunder -- Jonathunder (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jonathunder (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That OOF thing in front of his arm is too distracting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info could be some sort of teleprompter. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Thomas888b (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question May we know why, please --Jebulon (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)?[reply]
  - Tight framing? busy background with two de-contextualized little heads? cropped object obscuring main subject? terrible shadows?... Is it really QI? --Elekhh (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, Thank you. As some others here, I think that it is good that "oppose" votes were explained. It is a sign of respect for the nominator, it proves that the review was carefully done, and it can help the photographer for his next attempts. But you, Elekhh, knows this very well. It was (it is) just a question @ Thomas888b.--Jebulon (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Strongly Oppose As Per User:The High Fin Sperm Whale Thomas888b (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Happy Now (Everybody forgets to do things occassionally).[reply]
Oppose not the best face expression, and he is leaning too much forward. Athyllis (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RC Race Car SST2000.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2010 at 17:37:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Jfitch -- Jfitch (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- As Nominator. High technical standards and outshines all other images on the articles it's used on. Jfitch (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, very high technical quality. However, Jfitch, remember that we can have multiple featured images of the same subject; they're not in competition with each other (that would be COM:VIC). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- I agree. Grinatyou (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a good studio shot and and for me a candidate for both COM:QI and COM:VIC. However, the lightning of the subject is too flat and uninteresting for me to make it over the FPC bar. The current lightning is such that I find it hard to see the detailed structure at the rear and partially at the middle in the front end. As a consequence the photo is not really an eyeopenener for me. The categorization on the file page is also inadequate and not sufficiently specific. --Slaunger (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When opened full res I see no issues at all with seeing all the detail in the car. ~~I would try to change it but as I can't see the issue you mention I can't.~~ I've Re-uploaded a version which is certainly brighter in those areas now. JFitch (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My original assessment was based on looking at the photo in full resolution. It has improved a little, but it is all treatments of symptoms for non-optimal light in my opinion. The light makes the subject very "factual" to look at (which is not a bad thing), but at the cost of not really catching my full attention, as it is appears a little flat or uninteresting. It is a good photo, but I expect something very good for an FPC, including interesting lightning of a studio shot subject. --Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Agree with Slaunger plus the image seems underexposed and not sharp enough for a studio shot. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old gear Smältarmossgruvan.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 21:53:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Dusty old gear at abandoned iron mine Smältarmossgruvan, Sweden. All by V-wolf (talk) -- V-wolf (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator -- V-wolf (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it really tilted like that? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them stand on steel beams, so yes, they do tilt. --V-wolf (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I almost want to oppose this because it's so ugly, but a giant bronze gear is interesting, though I can't decide if the quality is high enough at full resolution. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --V-wolf (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:医科歯科.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2010 at 07:17:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Japan Tokyo Medical and Dental University

Info created by User:なかむらきたろう - uploaded by User:なかむらきたろう - nominated by User:なかむらきたろう -- nakamura kitarou
Support -- A beautiful Japanese university User:なかむらきたろう

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small (0,77 Megapixels only). Sorry --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:061019-A-7603F-151.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2010 at 21:14:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A U.S. Army sniper team from Jalalabad Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT)

Support it may be blurry and bad quality, but nevertheless is a very powerful image.
Info created by Cpl. Bertha Flores, U.S. Army - uploaded by Evers - nominated by Милан Јелисавчић -- Милан Јелисавчић (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Милан Јелисавчић (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry, low quality, overexposed in the area of the window.. Ggia (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ggia. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Above unfortunately. Jfitch (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs a more descriptive filename. Also, per above. LeavXC (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- pity is so blown up. Looks very dynamic. Grinatyou (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ggia. --Phyrexian (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, but too many quality problems as noted by other reviewers. --Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Shaked image...--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 06:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lizard fish Synodus binotatus Schultz 1953 in Kona Hawaii.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2010 at 20:10:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1- Mbz1 (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info There's something extra at the image. See it?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the little pebbles in the background are of very poor quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is like a blurred background for any macro shot. The subject of the image is a fish. Besides there is something more in the image. Did you see it?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It's not that it's blurred. There appears to be motion blur and strange boundaries. And I see several things, but I can't tell if they are just rocks or animals. Whatever it is it is very well camouflaged. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  When you'll find what I am asking for, you will know for sure what it is. It cannot be mistaken with anything. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it quite small? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a valuable image of a species, which we do not have any other photos of on Commons.

Was it trivial to id?

I recommend categorizing to and creating Category:Synodus binotatus as a subcategory to Category:Synodus.

A good illustration of camouflage. I have tried underwater photography a little myself and I have learned that it is not at all easy to get good technical quality. But even then I think the image quality is not good enough for FP, especially concerning sharpness of the subject and (color) noise.

Has it been color corrected a lot? It seems too red or perhaps a little oversaturated IMO.

Concerning the quiz, I did not find something clearly identifiable besides the fish, although that big, blurry, pinkish something in the upper left corner looks a bit odd. I have no idea if that is what you are hinting at, nor what it could possible be.... --Slaunger (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try again to find something extra at the image. It cannot be mistaken with anything. About ID. I knew it was a lizard fish, but I was not sure which one. So I went to this site and looks like mine is Synodus binotatus, but they say it is hard to ID. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the fish has a visual appearance, which resembles very well photos I can find of the two-spot lizard fish (S. binotatus), without being able to rule out that it could be another species. Don't you think you should modify the identification to probably Synodus binotatus on the file page and categorize it to Category:Synodus (or a new "Unidentified..." subcategory) to be on the safe side? Regarding the ongoing quiz: I give up

. --Slaunger (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about ID of this fish at the diving forum I am posting sometimes. So far nobody has responded yet, but I hope they will eventually. The second fish is in the lower part of the image. The eyes are seen clearly and cannot be mistaken with pebbles. Do not give up.

--Mbz1 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an eye on the top right of that "big, blurry, pinkish something in the upper left corner"? bamse (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not an eye in the place you see pointed out to, but you got really close to the correct answer. Please try again. The thing you need to locate are about the same size of the thing you pointed out to.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hint- the thing you need to find is located in the lower part of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Even if I'm not able to take such a picture, I think it is not sharp enough for a FP, sorry.

I put some annotations about the little game. Not sure...--Jebulon (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, wrong again. I am talking about the quiz

--Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a hint. It is a fish. You could see only it eyes and the head. Everything else is under the sand, but both eyes are seen clearly and cannot be mistaken with the pebbles. The head is not seen very clearly, but when you'll find the eyes, you will see the head :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found it! I put a note on it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did! congratulations! Now I could go ahead and

--Mbz1 (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:UFO.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2010 at 19:26:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Boris Karloff II - uploaded by Boris Karloff II - nominated by Boris Karloff II -- Boris Karloff II (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Boris Karloff II (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: only 0.3 megapixels, and very noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SpaceShuttleDiscovery final rollout for STS-133.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2010 at 13:40:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Larry Tanner, NASA - uploaded by Rehman - nominated by Jatkins -- Jatkins (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- Excellent color quality, good resolution, stunning image. Jatkins (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. No source is given for this image, I could not locate it on NASA's website, and a Google search of the photographer's suggests this is not a NASA image (see [8] and [9]), as the photographer is an employee of United Space Alliance, meaning the image is probably copyrighted, as opposed to being in the public domain. I have asked the uploader if they still have or can find a direct link to it at NASA.gov; if so, then I will resume the nomination. --Jatkins (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal permanent. Per [10], image copyright is retained by photographer. Nominated for speedy deletion. --Jatkins (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not featured. Image deleted --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PopoAmeca.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2010 at 02:02:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by AlejandroLinaresGarcia - uploaded by AlejandroLinaresGarcia - nominated by Erick1984 -- Erick1984 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Erick1984 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is this image special ?What is the value ?--Sammyday (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asclepias syriaca close up of the seeds.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2010 at 02:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- Naif composition. From a different angle you can get the branch in a better position to give equilibrium to the picture, and lifting the view can bring into it the intriguing thing on top that for intriguing and half shown becomes distracting. Can it be taken again? Grinatyou (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well in general I agree with your assessment of the composition, but, if it were taken from a different angle half of it would have been in a shadow versus all of it sun lit as it is now. The plant is 4 hours drive from my home and probably the seeds are gone by now.--Mbz1

(talk) 15:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You drove four hours just to take this picture? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. This image was taken by an accident. I've never seen those plants before, and never knew they are growing up in Yosemite National Park. We drove 4 hours to see the Autumn's colors in Yosemite. Autumn's colors in California is not so easy to find, and I miss seeing those colors. So we drove 4 hours one way to see Autumn, but most of the trees still were green :( Yet Yosemite was beautiful as always. The waterfall image nominated below was taken at the same place and at the same time.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~please see new vote above--Jebulon (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Grinatyou I think the composition is not good. Athyllis (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC) I think I will stand by my vote because, as Slaunger wrote, the U turn being so close to the edge is distracting, and I think more of the plant should be in the picture. Athyllis (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, no worries, but if "more of the plant" were in the picture, it would not have been close up of the seeds

--Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info A new version is uploaded over an old one. All editors, who voted on the image were notified on their talk pages.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

** Support this new one. (IMO better than the previous, by the way)--Jebulon (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Phyrexian (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ It is a very interesting subject. I have never seen seeds quite like that and the light is really good. The composition and colors are also good. However, I find the crop on the left hand side distracting. The "U turn" of the stalk comes too close the edge of the photo in my opinion. Will be happy to reconsider if it is possible to improve the crop. --Slaunger (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any better?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Well, yes the "U turn problem" is solved with the new crop, but now I think you are letting almost too much in there. I think a compromise between the two crops would have been better, but I do not think it will be a good idea with more versions using the same file name, as it is really confusing for other reviewers to revisit it repeatedly, so I'll just switch to neutral. Is this overriding of the same file name with quite different versions triggered by the new alternatives rule, there was all this fuss about? (In that case I think we need to revisit that rule). --Slaunger (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, I cropped it again and added as alternative. It is a different crop of the same image, so alternative should be fine. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose OK, changed to oppose for this version as I prefer the alternative. --Slaunger (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I confirm me vote of this new version --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- It's much better now. Grinatyou (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either --15:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by IdLoveOne (talk • contribs)

Alt 1[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, just the kind of crop I was looking for! --Slaunger (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even I disagree with the practice of Alternative versions, I support this one now.--Jebulon (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This alternative is allowed even under new rules. It is just a different crop of the same image, and not a different image.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that... But I disagree with the new rules, and... I support, my friend !--Jebulon (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, far better now. Nice composition --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either --15:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by IdLoveOne (talk • contribs)
Support I like them both. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

The chosen alternative is: File:Asclepias_syriaca_close_up_of_the_seed_copy.jpg

File:Gatschina-Schloss 2010 Panorama Front.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 09:12:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Heidas - uploaded by Heidas - nominated by RuED -- RuED (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RuED (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it does not cope with the guideline in terms of downsampling and compression.

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.

regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zodiacs navigate between icebergs in Arctic.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2010 at 03:30:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--per Grinatyou Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition per Grinatyou, and it's seriously tilted. --99of9 (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pointe 228.2 La Tourasse (3).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2010 at 13:34:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by archaeodontosaurus - nominated by archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another very good one.--Jebulon (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jebulon. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work as always!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry not to join the bandwagon, Archaeodontosaurus, but I don't like the composition. Why so much black? Why not put the four views in the same row? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first 3 are views of the highest scientific position. It is a mandatory exercise. the bottom image test to give a less austere view, which we have more familiar. Backgrounds should be as neutral as possible, even if sometimes I give a gradient. In this case it enhances the material. This tool is very aesthetic. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is interesting, but I also do not feel convinced about the composition. It was only after I read the caption that I realized it was the same specimen viewed at different angles. I think that for an FP that should be immediately visible from just seeing the photo. I also lack a sense of depth in the photo of the Azilian point. I think that has to do with the placement of the light sources. You have this related photo File:Harpon 2010.0.3.5. Global.JPG. That one is IMO better at addressing the depth of the objects and here the shadows and angles from the light sources seem to be better at illustrating the texture as well. The black mirror effect in that photo also helps. Maybe something similar could be done here? I also think that too much space seems to be used for the black background. --Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentVery well observed. What I preferred was the transparency of the material, so I placed the light so what makes the best, which hindered the recognition of form. This composition has been promoting the idea of the extreme delicacy of stone work. The weight of this object is 2.7 g! There is a version with reflection I will also pay, out of competition. Done--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your answer. I guess it is much a matter of taste and there is no absolute truth in this respect. I am not just sufficiently in awe for the presentation of the specimen to give it a support. 2.7 g is a lot lighter than I had anticipated. maybe it would be worthwhile to add this information to the file page as it adds value? --Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're quite right, even photography science is not immune to fashions. The weight of each piece is known. But it is a sensitive issue, many Museum Curators do not want to give this information to avoid aftershocks too close to the original. Do an exception to inform the debate and makes this information in the caption. Done --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for adding the information (and for making the necessary phone calls to get allowance). I was surprised to learn that many curators does not want to give this information to avoid aftershocks too close to the original? I must admit that I do not quite understand exactly what that means? Maybe it is a language barrier thing? Exactly what is the risk by providing the weight of a specimen? Sorry to ask such a stupid question .--Slaunger (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - fr:Ce n’est pas une question stupide. De très nombreux Musées (Sciences ou art) ne donne jamais le poids qui est une information sensible. Le commerce des copies est plus important que tu ne le crois. en:This is not a stupid question. Numerous museums (Science or Art) never gives the weight that is sensitive information. Trade copies is more important than you think. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, it is a safeguard against fraudulent copies. Keeping the weight secret gives a possibility to double-check if it really the correct specimen, now I get it! So, when you first revealed the weight here in this review, you were actually revealing more than you would normally do. Thanks for the explanation. --Slaunger (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bjoertvedt (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I feel free, and not in a "bandwagon", after reflection and a new careful review, I must say that I agree wit the nominator, and keep my initial support to this version.--Jebulon (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Campephilus principalisAWP066AA2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2010 at 20:19:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John James Audubon - uploaded by Cotinis - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trachemys (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Good, but why it is so tiny while the original measure 11 168 × 16 128 px ? --Citron (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This scientific illustration isn't particularly eye-catching. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eastern Screetch-Owl.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2010 at 18:00:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wwcsig - uploaded by Wwcsig - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trachemys (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible eyes ! -- MirandaAdramin (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality. colour noise should be fixed though. but either severe downsampling or hard cropping. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A bit overexposed (clearly) and a bit underexposed (to me), but it is an excellent image--Miguel Bugallo 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Owls = Cute --Calibas (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cadmium-crystal bar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2010 at 01:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*{{o}} Very good, but I can't understand: Where is the colour?--Miguel Bugallo 01:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Why b&W?--Miguel Bugallo 01:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 01:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again. Wouldn't it be easier just to have a bot automatically add an FP tag to all these? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice lighting, nice textures! LeavXC (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. Only a hint of CA, which is impressive for this subject. --Avenue (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice to see these coming. --Elekhh (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I really like the lightning patterns on the crystal surfaces. ACK to The High Fin SpermWhale Grand-Duc (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Agree. Grinatyou (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Excellent image. MC10 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:El Cosmonauta Teaser Poster.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2010 at 23:45:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Angel Trancon - uploaded by ErCradel - nominated by Bobamnertiopsis -- Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
InfoWhere is the permission by the copyright holder to use this image? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from on the poster itself? Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the permission under a suitable commons licensee is visible on the poster, itself? If so, where? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the left side, right after Angel Trancon. You have to zoom in to see them clearly, and they're iconic, not textual.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just reread the last thing I said here, and realized that it sounds...snippy. Sorry; no snippiness intended. We're all BFFs here. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Even so, the image guidelines state: "No advertisements, signatures, or other watermarks in image. Copyright/authorship information of all images should be located on the image's description page and should not interfere with content of the image." Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a poster; those things are part of the content of the image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, for example, File:Joan of Arc WWI lithograph2.jpg. It lists both the artist (Haskell Coffin), and the place of printing (United States Printing and Lithograph Co.) on the poster. Posters, by nature, have to be self-contained, and thus tend to include their own copyright data/everything else. This one is part of an ambitious effort to make an entire movie and release it under a cc-by-sa license; I nominated it for dual reasons; I think the image is poignant and stirring, and I think there's nothing else like it on the Commons (a modern-day movie poster, that is.) Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great! I love the image and I think a free licensed modern-day movie poster would be an awesome POTD! --Phyrexian (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Phyrexian --Kabelleger (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~apart from the~~ bad quality (maybe upscaling or bad scan) it hasn't a valid copyright status. The copyright holder is/are the photographer and/or the film company. You need a permission of them and show that with an ORTS tag in the file decription. Currently it's a copyright violation. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the poster itself shows, it has a creative commons license; no quality problems; featuring this may encourage the release of other posters. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1829 Papilio.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2010 at 09:08:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bjoertvedt - uploaded by Bjoertvedt - nominated by Bjoertvedt -- Bjoertvedt (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bjoertvedt (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's an Iphiclides podalirius --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a nice picture, but it's out of focus in most places. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as IdLoveOne. Athyllis (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manganese electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2010 at 01:10:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support--Miguel Bugallo 01:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LeavXC (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Very nice, but why so many samples? [in one image]~~ --Elekhh (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Clarified: I understand Mangan is a relatively cheap metal and the large quantity is representative of that. --Elekhh (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another piece of really good work. Grand-Duc (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pilsumer Leuchtturm 2010-10 CN-I.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2010 at 10:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Carschten. Photograph of the Pilsum Lighthouse with the long dike at the late afternoon, using the Rule of thirds --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Hastdutoene (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (座谈) 14:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This picture does not show that it is taken on a dyke. It is essential for the understanding of the picture that it does. GerardM (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can clearly see that the photographer stood on the dike. The ways at the right and left were lower, and when you look far I think you should conceive it, too (I marked it with an image note). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dike is clearly visible. -- MJJR (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Felix König ✉ 19:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the dike can clearly be seen … —DerHexer (Talk) 13:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Timk70 (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and useful too. Obviously it is a dyke...And IMO, it looks like if the right part were under the level of the sea (left part).--Jebulon (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Raven Manet D2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2010 at 05:12:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Édouard Manet - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the version User:Durova created tries to emulate the original "mood" of this image by keeping yellowish coloured canvas. applying black and white here is inconsiderate if knowing that the original paper was not white at all. the levels adjustment on durova's edit was not maxed out - since the ink on the original was not really opaque this seems to be a prudent decision. i would support durova's edit. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 14:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you link it, please? --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- sure, here you go [11] - it's just from the file history of this very nomination. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 17:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that poem (English). The quality looks to be there, although I'm guessing it probably should be whiter. I can see the rough texture of the paper and the strokes look very distinct to me. Happy belated Halloween! --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is bad practice to "update" a version of a picture where it is debatable if it is an improvement in the first place. GerardM (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vitrail Varennes Jarcy MNMA Cluny.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2010 at 22:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare sample of early gothic period stained glass windows (1220-1230). Not tilted, but very old. In the National Museum of Middle Age in Paris-- Jebulon (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support probably perspective image correction can be applied here to make not seeming tilt. Ggia (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for support. Yes I can do that, but it is very old, and seems tilted so in real (please note that the base is horizontal). It is not a 19th century vision (or restoration) of the middle age, and I've finally decided to let it as it looks, and nevertheless submit it in FPC... Let's wait for other reactions.--Jebulon (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that unless the (apparent) tilt is an important feature of the subject it should be removed. Grinatyou (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 01:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jafeluv (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ricordea florida (Florida Corallimorph).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2010 at 16:49:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support it looks like a painting -- Citron (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the lack of a main subject. It should have one subject that stands out from the rest. this is what I consider good underwater photography. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humm... There is only one specie of animal on this photo, but It would tear this flat coral colony of the rock to take a picture? It's difficult! =D --Citron (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I like this photo from its order, clearness and it's obviously tricky production. Bjoertvedt (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reason above Thomas888b (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I'm not quite sure what it is. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dynapac CA152 RV70 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 18:51:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by V-wolf -- V-wolf (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- V-wolf (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the crop is too tight. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Light not ideal. The front is bright while the side (the one we see) remains in the shadows inside an also dark background. Grinatyou (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Tight crop. low light. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not catch my eye. --Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right then. I withdraw my nomination --V-wolf (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kyudo Kai 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2010 at 22:00:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kollotzek/Wallrafen - uploaded by Fukutaro - nominated by IdLoveOne -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a nice pose, the main subject is both interesting and sharp. It is an impressive and beautiful bow and the photo is informative. But the background is really terrible and distracting, thus I have to oppose. --Slaunger (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that the image has no valid license template, and that is problem that needs to be addressed (I do not know about PD-en). --Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, per Slaunger. You'd think there would be less DOF at f/2.8. Maybe someone could blur the background? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but it would still be dark because of the gray stone and the tinted window unless the light were changed, then people would probably complain that it's not realistic. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--IdLoveOne (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Affrontata acquaro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 04:24:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by vale maio - uploaded by vale maio - nominated by vale maio -- Vale maio (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vale maio (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thomas888b (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What Is It? Thomas888b (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InfoIt's called Affruntata (from Calabrian dialect, meeting), a religious tradition of Southern Italy, during the.Easter day. Unfortunately there isn't the english version of the voice. --Vale maio (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Athyllis (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't like this composition (on the right - mirror?, hand) --Pudelek (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYes, it's a wide-angle mirror on the corner of the road. Unfortunately, I havn't been able to remove it :P Maybe we could remove it with Gimp or something similar, couldn't we? --Vale maio (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- composition--Miguel Bugallo 01:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

Info Removed disturbing elements on the bottom right of the picture. Is it better? --Vale maio (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Better, but speckle-y. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- composition problem anyway. Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- composition--Miguel Bugallo 01:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Entacmaea quadricolor (Bubble tip anemone).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2010 at 23:25:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent underwater shot. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- The upper part of the image has low quality. Maybe the upper side must be cropped out. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to neutral. Mulazimoglu (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support per The High Fin Sperm Whale, excellent underwater shot --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per The High Fin Sperm Whale --Llez (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Whatever they are. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Timetoday (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very nice detail. --Elekhh (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. mgeo talk 13:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grand-Duc (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Looks nice. MC10 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 18:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jonathunder (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Vicente del Bosque - Teamchef Spain (03).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 09:52:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Steindy - uploaded by Steindy - nominated by Steindy -- Steindy (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Steindy (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

Info Denoised and minor color adjustment. --Muhammad (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, and very good post processing by Muhammad--Jebulon (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this one's better, the BG's smoother and warmer. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Weak colors. Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good but not quite featured quality. Athyllis (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This one looks clearly better. I find the red patch of background a little distracting. --99of9 (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Duisburg, Rathaus, 2010-10 CN-01.jpg

File:DeadHorsePointStatepark-GrandPointOverlook.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 16:22:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Grand Point Overlook at Dead Horse Point State Park, Utah

Info created by User:Jean-Christophe BENOIST - uploaded by User:Jean-Christophe BENOIST - nominated by User:Jean-Christophe BENOIST -- Jean-Christophe BENOIST (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Christophe BENOIST (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request missing a geocode tag otherwise support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Good idea, indeed. --Jean-Christophe BENOIST (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lesser Yellowlegs.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 16:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wwcsig - uploaded by Wwcsig - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trachemys (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I Thomas888b (talk) Strongly support this picture Thomas888b (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2010 (GMT)
- You could just use {{SSupport}} --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, I like to be different :-) Thomas888b (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Wish it were bigger so I could see more detail of the bird. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support LeavXC (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed. I can not fix the underexposition--Miguel Bugallo 01:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PassionsspielhausUndDornenkroneErl.005166.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 14:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Passionsspielhaus Erl (Tirol) mit südtiroler Dornenkrone

Info created by HaTe - uploaded by HaTe - nominated by HaTe -- HaTe (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HaTe (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition. still there are some noise issues in the shadows. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request could you provide metadata/geocoding and upload a .tif/.jpg version of your composition? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see a point to this picture. GerardM (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Would be better if the subject wasn't in shadow, though I'm not sure if that's for effect. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same idea with GerardMMulazimoglu (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sarychev Peak eruption on 12 June 2009, oblique satellite view.ogv, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 13:17:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Avenue - nominated by Avenue -- Avenue (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare perspective on an eruption column. The animation is not as detailed as the available photos, but shows the ash cloud's three-dimensional structure better, and (naturally) how it behaves over time. -- Avenue (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastique ! --MirandaAdramin (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support LeavXC (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Renommée chevauchant Pegase Coysevox Louvre MR1824.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 20:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me, Statue by Antoine Coysevox -- Jebulon (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please see description page for further informations -- Jebulon (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version improved uploaded.--Jebulon (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs sharpening. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Sharpened.--Jebulon (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good now --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 18:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:20101020 Sheep shepherd at Vistonida lake Glikoneri Rhodope Prefecture Thrace Greece.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2010 at 17:44:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose of course a high quality photo, could be a QI. But I think the composition is not perfect (there are missing some sheeps at the right (and maybe the left)), also the picture is not really outstanding imo, sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes you have an interesting thought in your comment.. This one was one of the photos that I took there. The crop of the sheep (right) and the position of the shepherd gives a point of direction of movement to the left. As you see at the left there is no cropped sheep.. and the position of the shepherd is at the right and he moves to the left.. These was the things that I had I mind and I choose this image from the others (considering that this image is well balanced according to the content).. in the other images the shepherd was out of the image, cropped sheep were in in both directions (left and right) etc.. Ggia (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some of the sheep are goats. Just saying. 75.41.110.200 23:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sheeps or goats, whatever: it's a good picture. -- MJJR (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a man too — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 08:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark areas underexposed, left upper corner overexposed. To me the shadows are disturbing--Miguel Bugallo 20:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Main quality problem. Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. --mgeo talk 16:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20101024 Acropolis panoramic view from Areopagus hill Athens Greece.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2010 at 18:25:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is the view of Acropolis from the Areopagus hill. Ggia (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality, nice details, interesting composition with the play with the light(s) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support If there's no stitching errors. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Even it is not clear and the colors and the tones of the image is very far away from living. Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand why you oppose. the colors and the tones are natural.. no post-processing editing has been applied.. Ggia (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please, remove two dustspots in the sky at the upper right. Will support when that will have been done. :-) --Cayambe (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jokulsarlon Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2010 at 11:41:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ira Goldstein - uploaded by Ira Goldstein - nominated by Ira Goldstein -- Ira Goldstein 11:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ira Goldstein 11:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MirandaAdramin 12:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I was to support, because a "wow" effect, but I'm sorry to oppose, until dustspots (or waterdrops) on the lens are removed. There is a lot of them, in water and in sky, very visible at high resolution.--Jebulon (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see them, too... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Strong support I don't see any dustspots. Jebulon, could you add notes were they are? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added two notes.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now I found four others and marked them. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the eight I've seen are marked now...--Jebulon (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info so now no problem for me: I removed the dust spots --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I changed my vote to strong support. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - np :-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I wish that I had seen them before posting the image. -- Ira Goldstein 22:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mind! Essential now they are removed out of this nice image. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LeavXC (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me, the spots are still here, but it mays be my computer, as you say they are destroyed... It is a wonderful picture indeed, I remove my "oppose" vote. When the problem will be solved, I'll support. I'm happy my first intervention contributed to make it better !--Jebulon (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which dust spots do you still see? If you see all it's your fault (also vondeinem Computer, Monitor, ...). If not, please tell me which were still available --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try pressing SHIFT+Reload when looking at the image at full res. I guess you're looking at an old version from the browser cache. --Kabelleger (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportKein problem mehr. Alles gut.--Jebulon (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pjt56 (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support With a little bit of adjustment to the curves the lighting would look even better, but still a beautiful photo. --Calibas (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love ice! --Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Miguel Bugallo 22:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Wonderful image! MC10 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- Great. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed the notes.--Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rosaflamingo-Küken - Fuetterung mit Kropfmilch.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2010 at 21:09:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Brackenheim - uploaded by Brackenheim - nominated by -- 109.192.37.125 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- 109.192.37.125 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the the older flamingo has green fringing. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors and composition are very good. The subject seems to be a little out of focus. The photo is a bit too noisy for my taste. The most significant problem though is the transition from the white neck to the green background. It seems like a manual mask has been applied (perhaps to selectively blur the background?), but the masking is not done very well. The white bird has some resemblance with a scissor cutout being placed in the green background, and it looks artificial. --Slaunger (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good composition, I like it. mgeo talk 13:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SprigOfRosaCaninaWithHips-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

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

Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nasty vignetting, unfortunately. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also the white balance seems a bit off to me. But both could corrected. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the white balance is OK. All the colors are absolutely true. As for the vignetting, can you show me where you see this but in full size view?--MrPanyGoff (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good light and colors, but the composition and crop appear rather arbitrary with no clear idea of what should be in the frame and what should not. --Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger. - LeavXC (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dans-l-axe.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2010 at 08:59:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

La perspective des routes forestières de Chambord depuis la terrasse du Château, en novembre.

Info created by MirandaAdramin - uploaded by MirandaAdramin - nominated by MirandaAdramin -- The perspective of logging roads from the terrace of Chambord Castle in November. MirandaAdramin (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MirandaAdramin (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An ordinary pic with an interesting framing, badly HDR'd to make it stand out. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Well, let me rephrase that.[reply]
- Neutral The subject and composition of the picture are interesting ; unfortunately I find it a bit soft and unsharp. The tone-mapping, although decent, looks slightly artificial and CGI-esque. I previously jumped to the conclusion that tone-mapping was used to make this picture more eye-catching and divert attention from the slightly insufficient sharpness - which was unduly critical. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC) (edit: and the burnt-out white cloud on the left side of the sky is not very good-looking... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Support Not badly HDR'd ;-). Nice shot, not too much HDR. ---donald- (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose your tone mapping is very decent - good to see that along with a "hdr" image. although the perspective is interesting i don't like the composition and framing, looks disturbed. please consider working on the CA of your image. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support ~~oppose both~~ - beautiful, obstructing foreground competes with beautiful background and the stone on the bottom is too much. Nah, I can weak support this one, I like the framing. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose--shizhao (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info perspective and quality corrections by Carschten --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These changes displace the vanishing point. On the other hand, the shot being taken at 10mm, cropping distorts perspective, ironically (I believe it, but maybe this is subjective). --MirandaAdramin 15:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see above. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both - beautiful, obstructing foreground competes with beautiful background and the stone on the bottom is too much. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something, you seem to support the above one. --Elekhh (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Exactly as per IdLoveOne --Jebulon (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 22:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:205 - Vallée de Colca - Panorama - Juin 2010 - 10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2010 at 19:01:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by S23678 -- S23678 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Due to the large size of the picture (330 Mpx), and the file size limitation (100 MB), the original image (250 MB and 330 Mpx) was uploaded as a mosaic of 6 pictures. The current FPC is a lower quality version of the original image (99 MB and 330 Mpx). As well, a downsampled version is available (91 MB and 100 Mpx). All versions are visible in the file description. Downsamples of this image is available here (10000X - 1000X - 100X and 25X downsamples). --S23678 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- S23678 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Spectacular panorama. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info please consider asking others to upload such high resolution images which have advanced rights. village pump and user:Multichill could be the answer to this question. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very heavy file indeed. But astonishing picture with excellent sharpness. Congratulations with the technical tour de force! Unfortunately, the colors (especially the blue) are too saturated. -- MJJR (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{o}} Sorry, unnatural colors, blues oversaturated, the blues seems violets~~ --Miguel Bugallo 01:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not sure, I don't like the image, but it's very good--Miguel Bugallo 01:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we get a version that's only 10mb or so? My internet connection isn't that fast and I think that size is sufficient for most of what this image will be used for. --Calibas (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- here --S23678 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I so wanted to support, but I think I agree that the blue channel is too strong. How were the temperature and colours processed? --99of9 (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A blend of 3 expositions was done manually, then levels and curve were adjusted. I did not played independently with the channels. --S23678 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Ok. There could still have been an error in the original colour temperatures, but I don't know enough about this area to know for sure. It's certainly a Tour de force and very interesting to look at in detail. --99of9 (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking picture. mgeo talk 09:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This is a very great and sharp work. Look inside, you will love it. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Veekmas FG2327 S.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2010 at 11:17:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Grader in autumn light. All by V-wolf -- V-wolf (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- V-wolf (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the the fence and the shadowed road in front of the grader. Ggia (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disturbing background, disturbing foreground --Pjt56 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition far too busy, not even QI for me. --Elekhh (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not bad. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, but "not bad" is not good enough, as a FP is supposed to be "the best Commons has to offer". Maybe a QI but I'm afraid compostion is to cluttered. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your critique. I withdraw my nomination --V-wolf (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose--shizhao (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2010-Catedral de Santiago de Compostela-Galicia (Spain) 4.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2010 at 23:49:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo 23:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Facade of "O Obradoiro", Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia
Support -- Miguel Bugallo 23:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely subject and excellent composition, but the antennae are cut off at the top. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality and level of details, the cut-off lighting rod doesn't detract from this picture IMHO. I'd suggest a slight recrop on the right, to get rid of the partial tower, though. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there just the typical 5D Mark II high quality, but nothing more. The composition is very far away from featured. Strange and tight crop at bottom, a antenna is cutted off at the top, two disturbing overexposed white houses at the corner right, a cutted off part of the rear facade at the middle right, grey haze on the image, ... That's not even a QI to me, too --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry kaʁstn, I can't say what I want in English, but your words would deserve enough commentaries (if you want, I can do this commentaries in es, gl or pt, in your discussion page). For example, Typical: Do you think that I am an inept one? Why tipical? It's a random image?. Sorry, but I do not like the tone of your commentary. Habitual it's not tipical. And this image it's habitual with EOS 5 MARK II and with other camera.--Miguel Bugallo 00:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that there is some personal problem between us? I think that no, but…--Miguel Bugallo 00:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--Miguel Bugallo 00:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~--shizhao (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Too late --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gumerdiginman.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2010 at 10:18:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by ozgurmulazimoglu - nominated by ozgurmulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I see no point in featuring a picture of any non-notable person, high quality though it be. Any educational value? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you support? bamse (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I often use support templates when I mean oppose. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition could be better. Athyllis (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess even the composition of Mona Lisa could be better. I mean every composition could be better. :) Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Expressive and good quality portrait. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pholiota aurivella and Hypholoma fasciculare 2010-10-13.jpg

File:Nile River Delta at Night.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2010 at 13:59:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by an ISS Expedition 25 crew member - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment V. noisy but unique image.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a valuable and very informative photo. I enjoyed reading the thorough description on the file page. But the noise problems are, well, phenomenal. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger. Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The quality is so disappointing for a NASA. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --shizhao (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just about the coolest space pic i've ever seen but yes, noise is a problem. Bryan.calloway

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Praha, Smíchov, Kinského zahrada, Hladová zeď.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2010 at 10:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aktron - uploaded by Aktron - nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aktron (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite a bit of noise. Could this be softened a little. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me, blurry or fuzzy --Miguel Bugallo 19:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Same idea with Bugallo. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I kind of like this, but what is it? A wall? --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a one of few remaining part of Prague's fortification, so called Hladová zeď or Hungry wall. --Aktron (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blur and noise Timetoday (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality Cathy Richards (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smaky 100 IMG 4155.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 08:34:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Smaky 100 computer. On display at the Musée Bolo, EPFL, Lausanne. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Rama (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Neutral~~ another great shot of the series, but framing could be better. adding black canvas could improve the composition. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support thank you for changing the image. slaunger - your comment is anachronistic, changes were already applied then. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I didn't notice I reviewed a later version than you originally did . --Slaunger (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Peter Weis. I'll support if (when) done.--Jebulon (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is just so 1984! Excellent depiction of the subject. I think the framing is fine. --Slaunger (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chose promise, chose due.--Jebulon (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Good high-quality image. MC10 (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I think there is now a bit too much of space above and below the object--Cayambe (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 05:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 06:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Stanford University.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2010 at 02:44:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bryan.calloway - uploaded by Bryan.calloway - nominated by Bryan.calloway -- Bryan.calloway (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bryan.calloway (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Informative, but it has noise (notably along the top), panoramic distortion, ~~and possible stitching errors~~. LeavXC (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per LeavXC. Also CA and a bad quality of the sky.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Agree with the above, also not clear what is Stanford University and what is not (does it extend all the way to the horizon?) position of the panoramic view or panoramic view itself not helping. Grinatyou (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per LeavXC. MC10 (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Agree with the above Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good colors, light and overall detail level. I do not see noise as a problem nor did I manage to find any stitching errors reported above by LeavXC? The huge distortion is a major problem though, and I agree with the comment by grinatyou, that it is hard to see, where the subject ends and begins. --Slaunger (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upon closer examination, the "stitching errors" I saw are actually clouds rolling over the mountains. Sorry. LeavXC (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks guys. i can fix the panorama distortion and get rid of the curvature on the horizon. denoise a little maybe. found one stitching error on the oval ill fix that. anyone see any more? I'll add image notes to point out the individual building and make what is stanford more clear. its the largest contiguous campus in the country though. i think that every building, even barely visible, is on campus. Bryan.calloway

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Underwater surface ripples.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2010 at 00:08:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bryan.calloway - uploaded by Bryan.calloway - nominated by Bryan.calloway -- Bryan.calloway (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bryan.calloway (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Nice, but I can't support until that blurry thing is cloned out, and it would be nice if you could add geocoding. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment fixed the black spot. didn't even notice it the first time. User:Bryan.calloway 20:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Thank you. Any chance of adding geocoding, or at least writing were this is (and you forgot the date)? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--shizhao (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)* Oppose[reply]

Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Female Mallard and ducklings in Golden Gate Park.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 03:35:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support Excellent quality, but per Alvesgaspar so many times. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So many times? What do you mean--Mbz1 (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbz1: You really don't understand ? Lol ! Repeat after me 1..., 2... :"...Let the poor thing......" etc...--Jebulon (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it is about the crop. I might be able to fix it later on.

--Mbz1 (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the crop, but you need to clear your browser to see the fix. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much better now. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please write reviews so that they can be understood by new participants. In this example, "The crop is too tight" may suffice. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light and colors, and they are sweet those ducklings. However, the photo has too much point and shoot character IMO from a compositional point of view. For comparison, we have another mallard FP (not with ducklings though), which is I find is better, concerning both composition and light. --Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info We have no single FP of Mallard duckings.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the top-view composition.. location of birds close to the mother etc I think a better form for a photo like that is possible. Ggia (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per ggia and slaungerMulazimoglu (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good DOF, and useful (to me)--Miguel Bugallo 19:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Adorable! --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 18:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems pretty flawless.--MONGO (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good technicals, but as far as photography is concerned, well... Slaunger and Ggia have said it - composition is snapshotty. This is another good alternative. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger and Ggia. All is nice, but not enough for a FP imo ( it suffers of comparison with already featured other similar pictures of female mallards)--Jebulon (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info We have no single FP image of duclings. The one that was pointed out by Papa Lima Whiskey has all duckings out of the focus. It is much harder to take image of a family with each and every bird sharp and in focus than to take an image of a single bird, not to say that a "good alternative" is below 2 mega pixels.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I like the picture and felt tempted to support. But the opposers are right, the "mallard bar" is way too high to let this one pass. Another good example is this one by Richard. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, "mallard bar" is way too high, but I was not able to find a better image of ducklings on Commons. The one, which was offered as a "good alternative" is barely above 1 mega pixel with no single ducking that is in focus, just another image of a female mallard with background of the blurred ducklings. Richard's image is great as always, but no ducklings there. I just uploaded 2 images of a much higher resolution than "a good alternative" with at least some ducklings that are in the focus: File:Mallard Ducklings with mother 014.jpg and File:Mallards ducklings with mother.jpg, but I would not have nominated those for commons FP. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--shizhao (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please "[e]xplain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review." Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Mbz1 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deepavali-haNate.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2010 at 16:35:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Festival of lights or Deepavali celebration lights

Info created by HPNadig - uploaded by HPNadig - nominated by GerardM -- GerardM (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality:noise, CA. Not sharp either.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is CA? chromatic aberration? Grinatyou (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Mbz1, please remember to write the full name, especially with newcomers to FPC. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--not featured picture material. Grinatyou (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality problems. --Slaunger (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Quality low. Non teaching Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mbz1 and others Ggia (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Icebergs in the High Arctic - 20050907.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2010 at 14:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ccw tilt --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but still tilted ccw^^ --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WB seems a bit too warm? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info I uploaded a derivative version in the file history (I don't think it needs a new file). Maybe it's better? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed again.Thanks, Carschten--Mbz1 (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting. I am not too convinced about the technical quality, but for a 2005 shot it is good. The description is very unspecific concerning the location. Surely, you must know approximately where the photo was taken (Greenland, Canada, ... )? All the brown stuff on top of the iceberg. Do you know what it is? --Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aproximat location is added. I am not sure about brown stuff, but I tool a few images, and it is present on each of them. I might upload a different view later on.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Citron (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- No problem. Super valuable. Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. The crop in the lower right corner is not perfect. Could you adjust it? --Pjt56 (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will be hard without cropping a small iceberg.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long we can do so. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would have been even better if the iceberg did not overlap with the coastline, but very nice anyway. --Elekhh (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 06:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:D70-0404-dodona.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2010 at 00:14:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The ancient theater of Dodona. Mount Tomaros in the background.

Info created by Onno Zweers - uploaded by Onno Zweers - nominated by Lapost -- Lapost (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lapost (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Low general quality. Image not clear on original size. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ quality on 100% could be better. in general some adjustments on levels and sharpness could improve this picture. just tried levels 5|1.00|255 + high pass sharpening. results speak for themselves. please reconsider a rework. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 15:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks Peter, I've done what you suggested. Onno Zweers (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks for your changes. be aware that global sharpening may result in artefacts like in the skies of your image. a local sharpening helps changing the POI to the spot you want people to look at. when editing panoramas i usually tend to mask out the sky - there is no information which benefits from sharpening. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition, quality imo not bad, too --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Looks good overall. MC10 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Amada44 ^{talk to me} 07:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality and colors are not so great. Nice panorama though. mgeo talk 09:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Atverko (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nhimf (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to explain that the last two voters are colleagues of mine who, when they heard of this, insisted on voting, not because they are my colleagues, but as they declared themselves, because they think it's a good photo. Onno Zweers (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Color coded racetrack large channel.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2010 at 21:58:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by SimsContPics - uploaded by Sreejithk2000 - nominated by Slaunger --Slaunger (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This racetrack animation, can make you curious to understand a new concept such as Conway's Game of Life, a cellular automaton describing the evolution of cells in a simple model based on only four very simple rules being applied from iteration to iteration. I am intrigued by following the cluster of cells racing around in the track, transforming to another type of cluster, bouncing forth and back. A great way to introduce an abstract concept to the curious mind. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (As creator of image). SimsContPics (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me it's a bad image, but probably I do not understand the image. Can somebody explain the image to me? Where it is being used?--Miguel Bugallo 00:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you have navigated to the file page as the thumbnail generation here is apparently not showing it as an animation (as it should)? For more details about what is happening click the links in the file page, see, e.g., Reflector for an example. A lenghty discussion about the particular animation here can also be found here at the en wp FPC nomination page. If you want to play around with these facinating structures yourself, I recommend downloading golly. I have had great fun with that together with my kids . --Slaunger (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did not clarify myself--Miguel Bugallo 11:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support not heard of it either. but after reading the article on en:wiki i think it is a good illustration. great to see that even such niche topics are illustrated. keep on rollin'. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice. --Avenue (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Hard to figure out what it is. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{WSupport}}~~ To me the image is not assessable like other images, but it is an acceptable, useful image and with quality--Miguel Bugallo 00:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The "Game of Life" is fascinating but I don't think this particular example should be chosen as an FP of the type. In my opinion if lacks simplicity ... and beauty (visual beauty, I mean). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I can't vote. I can not understand--Miguel Bugallo 01:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's a good illustration that shows how a simple set of rules can cause apparently complex patterns. Anyone who knows about the Game of Life can recognize this animation (the yellow 'walkers' are typical). People who are not familiar with the subject may not recognize it, but that does not make the photo less valuable. Onno Zweers (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support AMAZING! I have always loved this image, and yet have never thought of nominating it! –hover Fly | chat? 22:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Спас Колев (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love Conway's Game of Life, and because of that I must oppose. The color coding might be useful for someone who knows and understands the game - but for the initiated it must be highly confusing unless it is explained that the colors don't matter at all. I might support a monochrome version. Plrk (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The description for the image does explain the colour code. --SimsContPics (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. I still think it is unclear, but I've changed to neutral. Plrk (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Cygnus olor -Reading, Berkshire, England -swimming-8a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2010 at 20:29:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ben Sutherland - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting lighting, and was taken with my camera! Needs geocoding however. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I know you had to be quick and it's beautiful, but the visible side of the head and neck is in shadow. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the head's lighting and the head's quality.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is good at the top of the wings. However, I have to agree with mbz1 regarding the lightning of the head. The twig in the foreground is distracting too, and I think the crop could be better as well (I would crop a little from the left and top). But even then, not really on par from a compositional point of view with, e.g., this FP of the same species. Too much point and shot character, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The twig could be removed and the image could be cropped, but the whole effect of the lighting on the white wing feathers and the water might be spoilt somewhat, so I opted to leave it as it was. The lighting on the wing feathers is good here. White feathers are often blown and overexposed and show little detail. This swan has a large black cob on its beak, so I think this one is a male. I think that the existing FP with a smaller cob is a female. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the light on the feathers is very good, and that there is also a gender thing to consider. You may also be right about the crop. I have not tried playing around with it myself. Still, for such a commonly occurring species and ease of getting close to it, I would expect more for an FP. --Slaunger (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Slaunger. mgeo talk 16:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value (not better than the current 7 Cygnus olor FP's). --Спас Колев (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geneva - Quartier des Grottes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2010 at 22:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Didier Baertschiger on flickr - uploaded by MadGeographer - nominated by MadGeographer -- mgeo talk 22:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mgeo talk 22:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent light and colors. There are lots of unusual aspects about the composition (cropped elements, tilt, perspective distortion), which would normally make me oppose, but seen in combination it becomes very interesting to look at for me. It catches my eye, especially the color transition from red to grey. I am a little concerned if a lot of post-processing has been applied or whether it really is natural light, which has produced these nice and artsy textures. Hard to tell as not much information is given in this flickr upload. Could benefit from geocoding too. --Slaunger (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Location added (it was in fact different from the location given by the creator). mgeo talk 17:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Dark areas clearly underexposed and too much underexposed: I can't fix it. Vignetting --Miguel Bugallo 00:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The colors are nice, but the above messes it up for me, too, and makes it seem unrealistic. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like colors and the composition. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good subject and composition. But I agree with Bugallo about the technical quality--Jebulon (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the vignetting on purpose or caused by the light situation? Because apart from that, the quality is really good, and I doubt that a lens that can do this quality has such bad vignetting. --Kabelleger (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? mgeo talk 10:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 22:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hypholoma fasciculare 4 edit1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2010 at 06:46:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by The High Fin Sperm Whale - uploaded by The High Fin Sperm Whale - edited by Muhammad - nominated by LeavXC -- LeavXC (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LeavXC (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice light and colors. Somehow the composition does not really catch my eye the "FP"-way. Can't really express the reason, thus my neutral vote. --Slaunger (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Mulazimoglu, what is the reason for your opposition? LeavXC (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decide a neutral vote. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Tamba52 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not quite featurable for me. Generally the composition is not striking, but I think the particular problem for me is the front toadstool sticking out toward the camera. --99of9 (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good depiction of the subject. --mgeo talk 16:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Salbert-5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2010 at 07:12:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The underground gallery between the barracks for two capioners, in the Salbert hill fortifications.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light and composition are not that good. Interesting scenary though. --Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting - mysterious composition. Ggia (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support ok, probably not the best cave photo that could've been taken. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset in Saxon Switzerland.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2010 at 17:34:51 (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) 17:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The image shows the western part of the Saxon Switzerland National Park during the sunset. The German Saxon Switzerland National Park and the Czech Bohemian Switzerland National Park forms together an intigrated whole. Therefore the image has historical and educational value. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i don't like the results of downsampling and noise reduction to prevent the effects of ISO 400. the original would be nice to have for comparing. is there any educational value intended? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you don't know anything about Nikon D 300. This is a professional camera. There are no special effekts of ISO 400 like noise or grain. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - well that's not very cricket of you sir. the nikon d300 is not exempted from luminance and chroma noise. as a reference see this or that. your image is not ooc, therefore providing the original is a stronger argument than to deny someone's knowledge of cameras and noise. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Michael Gäbler, please discuss the image, not your reviewers. If you can't be civil, then don't participate. Please see en:WP:PA. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo is nice of course but a bit dark for me. mgeo talk 16:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I made the image at sunset on the beginning of the hazy blue hour.The name and the subjekt of the picture is "Sunset in Saxon Switzerland". At those time it is a bit dark in the Saxon Switzerland National Park. You see the first lights in the village. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Umnik (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It's dark the color of sky is weak. No wow factor for me. Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above, too dark. --Karelj (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please "[e]xplain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review." Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice sunset image of a beautiful landscape --Simonizer (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a sunset image, so being too dark seems like kind of a silly argument to me. Steven Walling 06:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above--Miguel Bugallo 22:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The fresco Ateni Sioni.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2010 at 05:41:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gaeser - uploaded by Gaeser - nominated by Gaeser -- George M. (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George M. (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice subject. But the composition is not good IMO. Too much space above, and unfortunate crop of the hair left. The main issue is that this photo is pretty unsharp, almost from chin to bottom. Below the FP standards. (Furthermore, I would like to say that this picture has a high encyclopedic value, but is quite unusable because of the careless categorization IMO)--Jebulon (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of unsharpness, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably should be downsampled. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bee on Yellow Flower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2010 at 19:32:41 (UTC)

Info created by Thomas888b - uploaded by Thomas888b - nominated by Thomas888b -- Thomas888b (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger Support than everybody else has -- Thomas888b (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Thank you for identification, although I'm not quite sure this is FP quality. I think you should try geocoding it and look into VIC. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Due to popular demand, geocoding has been added.Thomas888b (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, but not up to the current macro standards. The subject is dark, unsharp and undetailed. Please check the present insect FPs. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So what? Why do we critically judge a picture by the digital quality (E.G. it's missing a pixel) as oppose the the image quality (E.G. This picture looks nice)? Thomas888b (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment -- Shooting good quality photographs of bees is a difficult business because they are usually fast, nervous and dark. It takes time, patience and technical skill. I'm afraid that "looking nice" is not good enough for reaching FP status. We have a good set of quality criteria and they should be used by all reviewers just before applying the subjective 'wow' or 'no wow' factor. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong support~~ I like this photo, it is nice. Posted by a visitor at 21:24 (UTC) Sorry, no anon votes. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --same idea with AlvesgasparMulazimoglu (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo but the bee is really not good, unfortunately. mgeo talk 11:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh well, You guys obviously don't appreciate it. I could always take it somewhere where people will apreciate it for it image quality, not critisize it for being a tad too dark. everybody who I have asked say that they think it's really good.Thomas888b 12:51 11 November 2010 (GMT)
- Comment -- Please try to understand. It is not "a tad too dark" or just "missing a pixel", it is underexposed and blurry, and almost no detail can be seen in the body and legs of the insect. Yes, composition is nice but a good composition is just one of the important components of a FP. Here are some nice examples taken from or FP galley of Himnoptera: File:Apinae Bombus pascuorum.jpg, File:European honey bee extracts nectar.jpg, File:Osmia rufa couple (aka).jpg, File:Bumblebee October 2007-3.jpg, File:Bombus hypnorum male - side (aka).jpg and File:Apis mellifera carnica worker hive entrance 3.jpg. If you really want to participate in this forum and nominate your pictures you must be prepared to accept the opinion of the reviewers, some of them very good photographers. Yes, you can take your pictures to your friends and family, and be praised for them, but you will learn nothing from it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think the darkness and blurriness are Thomas' fault. There isn't much you can do with a point and shoot camera. Even some of my first macro shots with my SLR turned out badly: File:Syrphus sp.jpg, File:Mating Bee Flies.jpg, and File:Archytas fly.jpg. And my point-and-shoot macros were even worse, much more so than this. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the bee is dark (per Alvesgaspar). Ggia (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- The use of "Strong support" and "Weak support" templates, which are not considered in our voting system, is making the FP bot to close this nomination before time, as if it didn't have any supports. Plese keep to the normal templates. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then someone should fix the bot, and so it can count weak votes as only half. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- In Commons FPC all votes have the same value -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ -- Bu fotoğrafın arka planı ve kesilme biçimi oldukça kötü. Odaktaki arı da çok net değil. Kompozisyon ise oldukça başarısız. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Restoring votes and closing. Please do not delete votes, or change the closing date (which was the 19th). I advise against renomination, because this is a very compelling vote, but if you insist, you will have to start a fresh nomination at a new nomination page. --99of9 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flisning av träskrot.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2010 at 18:45:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by V-wolf -- V-wolf (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- V-wolf (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good technical quality. I like the actions with the fragmented wood dispersed in the air. I am not too convinced about the composition though. I would have gone closer to the ground to get some perspective in the dominance and drama of a big powerful machine, shredding wood. --Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing original here. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question How do you mean? The wood is real wood, the machines are real machines, the photo is not manipulated more than adjustments of levels and contrast . Everything you see is original, nothing added later. --V-wolf (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean her we see wood machine etc. so what? Theres not an original theme.Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I apologize for my misunderstanding. But as far as I can see, there are no UFO crashings or naked marching bands in your FP candidating pictures either. There are values in the everyday life as well. --V-wolf (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning values in everyday life, I agree photos of this is important. Are you familiar with COM:VIC? --Slaunger (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here and sorry my English is poor. But i feel like here when you give an opposing vote people take it personally and pointing you as the one who is spoiling the party. Everyone must be objective. I see some people moving together in a kind of fellowship. Like give and get policy. Wish i could have said what i meant. Just objectivity. Thanks. Mulazimoglu (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against you, Ozgurmulazimoglu, and I respect your vote, but if there only were extraordinary subjects to be promoted, I believe we would have to stick with the outer space pictures from NASA. @Slaunger: Yes, I once promoted this picture to VIC with the scope woodchipping, but I took it back, because I realized this only depict woodchipping from wood litter (old chairs and boards), and maybe that's a too narrow scope. --V-wolf (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--shizhao (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Спас Колев (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality's ok, but kind of snap-shotty. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sebastián Castella in Leon.jpg

File:15-18-19-f-roppe-lp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 08:51:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The underground barracks (located in the Barracks of War (concrete)), inside the Fort de Roppe.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'm not sure with the white balance, but the image is excellent. I Agree --Miguel Bugallo 00:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I've configurated my camera on WB Tungsten and I've made the lightpainting with Maglite light. --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks and ok--Miguel Bugallo 01:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value (I have the feeling that twice per month we have a POTD with the same French bunker). --Спас Колев (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per abobe. We already have five FPs with similar subjects and this one is no better. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 23:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Chicken Egg without Eggshell 5859.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 01:29:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gangulybiswarup - uploaded by Gangulybiswarup - nominated by Gangulybiswarup -- Biswarup Ganguly 01:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biswarup Ganguly 01:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Support Just wondering, which lens were you using? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The patterned lighting. Otherwise I would have supported this interesting subject. --99of9 (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I've struck my oppose. But now for the mistaken people like me, the description needs to be improved to educate us. Once that is done, I can support. --99of9 (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Per 99of9, exactly. The drop should maybe be removed too.--Jebulon (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting. mgeo talk 16:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you guys mistaking bubbles inside the egg for light reflections? --Calibas (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tending to neutral. Distracting drop as noted by Jebulon. I was actually sidetracked by the apparent strange reflection of the light source too, until I saw the comment by Calibas . --Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Thanks to Calibas. It may be bubbles indeed...I remove my oppose, but stay neutral because of the drop--Jebulon (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Amada44 ^{talk to me} 07:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Mge, but a black bg would've been better. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laser Towards Milky Ways Centre.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 06:33:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO/Y. Beletsky - uploaded by Lars Lindberg Christensen - nominated by Spongie555 -- Spongie555 (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spongie555 (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting --Schnobby (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to spoil the party, but am I the only one to notice lots of noise in the darker parts? --Pjt56 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am so sad to vote oppose, but I must. As Pjt56 pointed out, there is so much noise here, especially around the edges, and distortions. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral tending towards support. Huge wow and noise. Looks absolutely great in preview but really noisy in 2 MP review size (full res is even worse, but it is not fair to review a photo taken at these light conditions in full res). --Slaunger (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much noise and too much chromatic noise. I cannot understand, in addition, what happens to the building of the left: Distortion? It isn't a building? It is thus?--Miguel Bugallo 23:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Jebulon (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I couldn't find the EXIF data for this image, but I imagine that the photographer used an exposure time of 15-30 seconds and an ISO speed of 1600 or 3200. The high ISO speed inevitably creates noise, but it is necessary in the lighting conditions to expose the stars well (especially the Milky Way) without any streaks or trails. Also, according to the description on the source page, this was taken with a wide angle lens, covering 180 degrees of the sky, hence the "fish-eye" distortion. I gladly support this picture. - LeavXC (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others-- Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very impressive sky and laser beam... but sorry, there is too much chromatic aberration in the stars. --Cayambe (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite some inevitable quality issues: this is a great image. -- MJJR (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per user HFSW. mgeo talk 09:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support With MJJR –hover Fly | chat? 22:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yes, there is noise in the photo, but I don't think that's very important because the scene is very impressive. Wonderful display of science at work. -- Onno Zweers (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wertuose (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for wow, rarity, and educational value despite all the noise, distortion and peculiar fan-shaped CA (especially severe towards the sides). --Avenue (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Savoyard armour IMG 3805.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 08:35:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Cuirassier's armour in Savoyard style, ca. 1600-1610. On display at Morges military museum. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Rama (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very high quality photograph IMO. Some little issues with the masking maybe, and with the light below. The restoration of this object is not good: the hinges look too modern, and are not fixed in the original holes. Funny: did you notice the spider's web through the helmet ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Until the crop is loosened around the top and bottom, which will not be hard, since it is a black background. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info Cuirassier's armour in Savoyard style, ca. 1600-1610. On display at Morges military museum. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - edited by LeavXC
Support LeavXC (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. mgeo talk 12:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:Savoyard_armour_edit.jpg

File:Dg5artipayallar 036.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 15:38:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by ozgurmulazimoglu - nominated by ozgurmulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- Point 5 of criteria. Grinatyou (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question @ Grinatyou: Could you explain what you mean, please ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   * Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
         o almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
         o night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
         o beautiful does not always mean valuable.

This, the fifth point of the guidelines for nominators. It is not evident for me the value of this picture. Grinatyou (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see. What is a "valuable picture", then ? And why this one is not valuable to your eyes ? In my opinion, this picture is not against this fifth point. It is not an anonymous sunset, it is not an undetailed night shot, and his value is not (only) due to his beauty. --Jebulon (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it is not valuable. I was just asking why is it. It is not self evident. For what I see only see, a sunset, and the silhouette of some fishermen and a dock. Is the picture showing something that specially happens there? I just don't know. Seems to me that you can have pretty much the same picture in many other places. Is the size of the sun special in that place? Are the fishermen doing something sui generis? What I know about it is not enough to get a sense of its value. Grinatyou (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Firstly Rule #7, secondly it could be used to illustrate certain photographic techniques like silhouettes. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gorgeous. --Calibas (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great image, but strong CA on the fishermen.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with Mbz1, but easily correctible IMO--Jebulon (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIt is also a third active nomination by the user.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than any sunrise. --Muhammad (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality for FP, half right noised. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting form.. but the composition does not convince me.. no details in the figures.. seems like a color filter has been applied... usually in the sunset you don't have homogeneous reg-orange color in all the frame. Ggia (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a simple Canon PowerShot S5 IS. I have no filter or other tools. This image comes out straigth out of the camera. In this geography you dont need a color filter to see this amazing colors. Thanks for the comments though. Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And is this opposition about my opposition on this file? File:20101024 Acropolis panoramic view from Areopagus hill Athens Greece.jpg. Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do such things.. Ggia (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ozgurmulazimoglu, please assume good faith. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sorry if i broke hearts. Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't discuss other reviewers or their hearts and you'll do fine. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Inspiring composition mitigating the less-than-optimal technical quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- OK, a comment is not motivational enough to give a proper explanation. I don't see the value of this picture beyond being beautiful. The claims "it is not an anonymous place", when you don't see more than a dock and a sunset and therefore can be almost anywhere, "it is better than any sunset" and "his value is not (only) due to his beauty", which don't explain why and seems to be expecting that I accept it as an act of faith, do not convince me. Grinatyou (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --shizhao (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please "[e]xplain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review." --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful –hover Fly | chat? 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps I don't understand what is CA. To me, it's a very good image. Hight ilustrative value--Miguel Bugallo 22:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is really chromatic aberration. The light is close to monochromatic and they are not using a particularly small focal length (I think). This is just diffraction of the light near the contour of the fishermen. It will happen no matter what camera, lens or technique you use as long as you are far enough from the subject. CA and this are two diffraction phenomenons but one happens at the lens and this one at the mens [sic]. Grinatyou (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that CA is unlikely but also diffraction, for the same reason. What we are seeing is likely an artifact of processing of the data in the camera or on-sensor charge smearing, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but diffraction will occur every time you have a wave passing next to an object. It is noticed better in situation with high contrast like this one. Take a candle and put your hand between it and a wall. The farther the hand from the wall the blurred the shadows edges. This is what is happening here. Nothing to do with the camera, lens or sensor. Grinatyou (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, diffraction is present, but I'm not convinced that it explains what we are seeing. The width for the first maximum in the diffraction pattern is 5 mm at the 80 m subject distance (focal length=35.4 mm; sensor width = 5.76 mm) while the bright yellow fringe (outside the silhouette) looks more like 10-20 mm to me.[12] Also, the fringe would be the same color as the sky. I think it may be an artifact due to overexposure which I describe below. It is much less apparent near the men's feet which is not overexposed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak Support: really a beautiful composition, very nice. Yeah, there are some quality problem (especially chromatic aberrations) but they aren't too disturbing that they would wreck the image buildup --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed. Four million pixels with a value of 255 in the red channel. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean four thousand, probably... Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find 3,800,289 pixels with a value of 255 in the red channel. Nearly entire upper left quadrant is over-exposed in the red channel. Also, the sky behind the two leftmost figures above the knees and the water left of the pier are saturated. It is difficult to properly expose a subject that contains intense red or orange colors. Near the sun, both the red and green channels are saturated. That explains the change in the sky color in that part of the picture. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you sure that half of the pixels are saturated in the red channel? The histogram shows a peak at 255 but the area under that peak doesn' appeart to be close to half of the total (my application doesn't count the # of pixels though). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The number quoted above is from GraphicConverter. Gimp finds 3,799,377 pixels with a value of 255 in the red channel. The observation about the upper left quadrant is from Photoshop Elements 4.0 using the info tool. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it!--Kürschner (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot, technically correct, it depicts a great atmosphere. - unsigned vote by User:Murdockcrc Counted in result --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Zealand Fur Seal pup (Arctocephalus forsteri), wet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 14:46:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Avenue - uploaded by Avenue - nominated by Avenue -- Avenue (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Avenue (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Motion blur ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a patch on the left of its neck that seems less sharp to me than other things at the same distance; is that what you meant? I would have expected the other side of its head to move as well, if that was moving, but perhaps it is motion blur nonetheless. --Avenue (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that's what I mean: some parts are (or look) unsharp to me.--Jebulon (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no motion blur. Or are you saying that you would like a little bit? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support i think he probably meant to comment on the photo below. nice pic though Bryan.calloway
Support Looks very nice. MC10 (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Nice and simple. Grinatyou (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-- Teaching. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided for a neutral vote. Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Interesting pose, but I am not convinced regarding the value, when the back dominates so much, and only parts of the face is seen, see, e.g., this seal FP for a much more eyecatching scenary. I am also reluctant concerning image quality. Seems a little too soft ~~and with a tad too much (color?) noise in the wet fur.~~ So, sorry, it does not pass my seal FP bar. --Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These seals do have quite mottled fur, see e.g. here, which might account for the noise. And they are a temperate species, not generally found in much snow and ice. --Avenue (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken regarding the texture of the fur. It is not the presence of snow in the other FP, I was after, it was the much more eye-opening pose of the seal . --Slaunger (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I interpreted the word scenery to mean the background. I agree this is less eye-catching; provoking a pose like that is probably illegal here in NZ, though. --Avenue (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The slight misunderstanding probably reflecks a lack of ability on my part to express myself precisely in a foreign language. Also, I do not want you to do anything illegal and trigger the same pose as in the other FP. My comment was meant as an example of a more interesting pose. --Slaunger (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- Looks elegant. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this picture will pass as FP, but I'm not convinced, per Slaunger.--Jebulon (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pose, per Slaunger. --99of9 (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --shizhao (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 22:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per Slaunger, sorry. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Speedway Extraliiga 22. 5. 2010 - erä 17.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 14:34:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 14:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finnish speedway, which is one loud and dusty form of motorcycle sport, with all four riders of one start. —kallerna™ 14:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good action shot. --Slaunger (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Modern Ben-Hur !--Jebulon (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Good! If you have more of the picture to the left, please give that too, I would like to see completely the zigzagging line that they and the dirt form and to have the V of motorists more centered. Grinatyou (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Excellent image. MC10 (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great shot! LeavXC (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Maybe crop right side a little bit. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Congratulations! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 06:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Onno Zweers (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:House boat fascia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2010 at 17:08:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Challiyan - uploaded by Hekerui - nominated by Praveenp -- Praveen:talk 17:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Praveen:talk 17:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but sadly, outside the jungle and sky are severely blown. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but sadly, the stitching job is not convincing. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 19:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but sadly, i think The High Fin Sperm Whale is right - both, in syntax and content. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, but sadly... three people just used this phrase. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but sadly, outside is totally blown. –hover Fly | chat? 22:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the photo bag - lens, bottles of mineral water in the middle of the image. Ggia (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- inner side wonderful, outside is a problem. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Wertuose (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment an explanation for an opposing vote is always appreciated by nominator and other reviewers. Could you please tell us why you oppose ? Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but sadly, I would turned a blind eye to the blown out windows if there weren't these strong stitching errors und the unfavourable composition (especially crop at top and bottom) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, but interesting, very poor stitching and blown outside. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nádraží Braník, Tatra T3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 23:22:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jagro — Jagro (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jagro (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality, but I would have liked to see a greater proportion of the wagon — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 14:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality doesn't look that great and the choice of the background is unfortunate. mgeo talk 11:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --shizhao (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Kind of interesting, but kind of boring also. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wanfried Panorama edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2010 at 00:10:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated and Supported by PETER WEIS TALK 00:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the foreground is underexposed and the clouds are overexposed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The High Fin Sperm Whale--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please state why? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the foreground is underexposed and the clouds are overexposedMulazimoglu (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after the given opposes i will provide an improved version. looking forward to do so by the end of the week. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 17:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support for shear beauty. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Info just uploaded the new version over the old. please add new comments and reconsider your vote. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --shizhao (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I want to be there and sit on that bench. Sigh. -- Onno Zweers (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, even I'm not entirely convinced, something embarrasses me, and I don't precisely know what, but it is a good and fascinating picture.--Jebulon (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably would have opposed the first one, but the overexposure problems seem to have been somewhat corrected in the edit. NativeForeigner 토론 (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that this image shows an overview from an important vantage point in that area. it therefore enables people to see this overview without being there and more importantly is the only image on commons depicting this area. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good and very illustrative to me. mgeo talk 10:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Whale--Miguel Bugallo 21:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the new higher resoultion is fine, but the foreground is now more underexposed than before... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no it is not. i increased the exposure for the foreground compared to the old version, so this would be rather paradox. perhaps it's the impression due to the severe changes in lighting and projection method. if you compare black values, you will notice that the new version features hardly any solid black areas and that the foreground is much more dynamic. after seeing this image on other displays i am more and more under the impression that monitor calibration is critical to review pictures like this one. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glass House 2006.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2010 at 23:11:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Carol M. Highsmith - uploaded by Elekhh - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elekhh (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Somewhat unsharp, somewhat washed-out... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I imagine you're aware that the image is 27Mpx ?! Would you prefer a downsampled version? --Elekhh (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--looks too amateur, beside the actual technical problems pointed above. Grinatyou (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- amateur? --Elekhh (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! What is interesting is that it does, to me at least. I didn't know that the author was a notable professional photographer. Now that I know I think I should stay with what was my first impression of the picture, unless I missed remarkable features of the image that require a better understanding of the subject. Are there some other important choices in the composition to be seen besides the intention of showing the whole building and avoiding horizontal lines? Grinatyou (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a renowned photographer has taken the picture doesn't mean it's perfect --Muhammad (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that? I didn't. --Elekhh (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose-- per above Mulazimoglu (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the path was the main subject I think I would have voted differently, focus seems to be on the path crossing. --V-wolf (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an image of a house in its landscaped setting. The very reason to design a house "of glass" is to connect the interior space with the exterior space, so yes, the image is mostly about the surroundings of the house. But I accept your argument that the composition might be too focused on the path. --Elekhh (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- per above--shizhao (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Elekhh (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australopithèque Cerveau Double.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2010 at 21:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting and valuable specimen. High technical quality. --Slaunger (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support An encyclopedic value! --Citron (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Quality and teaching. Maybe unique. Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent ! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Pjt56 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No need of my support, but very good and rare picture, indeed !--Jebulon (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF lacks on a lot of parts, also the heads are a bit noisy. I think there are some better views and pictures of Archaeodontosaurus, too. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He mights say this himself much better than me, but please notice that this picture is not entirely from the hand of Archeodontosaurus (see the file description page). In my opinion, this picture is featurable not because of his technical qualities (not the best, ok, but not the worst), but for what it shows. I had never seen until today the brain, (even fossilized !), of an Australopithecus. This high encyclopedic value justifies a FP promotion in "Commons", IMO. --Jebulon (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral technical quality could be way better. this item is not endangered to urgent destruction nor does it show a historic singularity which could not be photographed again - therefore a better (meaning technical more advanced) version could be created. its shortcomings in DOF, sharpness and focus are severe, so no support from my side (as if this would matter). regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When we made friendship let us take pictures of these specimens it was very difficult to ask, in addition, we can set up a studio. So far the articles on early hominids were illustrated with casts of poor quality. We must encourage scientists to come to Common, and not to look too closely at their weakness in photographic technique. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great educational work. Steven Walling 06:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Спас Колев (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality should be much better for a studio shot. Sorry, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is not a photograph taken in the studio. This piece and others we have been able to come up with the picture taken, but we did and neither flash nor tripod or a good light. But it remains an exceptional photography, because it does not access easily holotypes! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very high encyclopaedic value, good enough quality. But I refuse to accept this "Toothsy" as my ancestor! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Lord Ram.jpg

File:Innsbruck pedestrian bridge2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 11:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chene - uploaded by Chene - nominated by Chene -- Chene Beck (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chene Beck (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The colors look manipulated, and the pillar of the bridge is cut off. Highlights in the bridge and the mountain building are washed out. Nice bridge though. -- Onno Zweers (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think you could make a featured picture with this subject, but this photo isn't good enough. Oversaturated colors, composition is not really good (framing at bottom and right) and there are perspective distortions, sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the colours are strongly oversaturated -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose -- Renkler çok abartılı. Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Not needed --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nor’wester Kolkata 5954.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2010 at 10:47:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Biswarup Ganguly - uploaded by Biswarup Ganguly - nominated by Biswarup Ganguly -- Biswarup Ganguly 10:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biswarup Ganguly 10:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of poor quality: the image is extremely noisy and undetailed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose -- Oldukça başarısız. Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Not needed --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dinoceras mirabile Marsh MNHN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2010 at 18:19:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me , restoration and given to the Museum by Professor Marsh in 1889 -- Jebulon (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting specimen (cast), concerned by the "funny" Bone Wars. That's why it has two names, Uinthaterium anceps (Leidy 1872) and Dinoceras mirabile (Marsh 1872), still so named in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle of Paris.-- Jebulon (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ Support high ev. please reconsider working on the levels again - mere black as backgroundcolour is more convincing than this dark greyish tone. moreover some spots are left deriving from masking (?). regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for the changes. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak immaterially Oppose: unfavourable light conditions (your new version is better, but imo not perfect) and I'm unconvinced with the composition (crop at the right is strange). Sorry... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- . We had "weak/strong support" and "weak/strong oppose", which does not mean anything IMO, and now, we have "weak immaterially oppose". Somebody suggested that a "weak something" should count for a half vote... "weak immaterially something" is now a "quarter vote" ? We are living in a modern era... For next time, I suggest "nano support" and "almost oppose". Let's play. strong--Jebulon (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or we use femto-support, nano-support, micro-support, support, kilo-support, giga-support, etc., and we record the decimal logarithm of the expression to establish the final score. Rama (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support (i.e. between a support and a deca-support), acting on my proposal above. Rama (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- J'avais déjà proposé le "nano support". Sois à c'qu'on t'dit ! Et encore, on est gentil, on reste dans le système décimal...Imagine un truc avec le système impérial...--Jebulon (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2010 at 18:36:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rubinstein Felix - uploaded by Rastaman3000 - nominated by Rastaman3000 -- Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted (right buildings) or distortion? Smooth colors (except the blue one)? I don't like it--Miguel Bugallo 19:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See above--Miguel Bugallo 19:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Could you please try to explain why ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A brighter day would've been better. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stanford Panorama fixed.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2010 at 02:40:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bryan.calloway - uploaded by Bryan.calloway - nominated by Bryan.calloway -- Bryan.calloway (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bryan.calloway (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Sorry. I seldom FPX an image, but. there are lots of stitching errors on the sky, curved horizon, very bad quality of the sky

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.

--Mbz1 (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Allegheny Ludlum steel furnace.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2010 at 00:40:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alfred T. Palmer - uploaded by Davepape - nominated by IdLoveOne -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'ts a scaned picture, I have retouched it. --Citron (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooh, it does look better, thanks. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely rendered in spite of the difficulty, and quite useful. Rama (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This nomination is a good idea, and the "restoration" job is well done. Even if it is a "vintage" picture of the 40's, what about a perspective correction (only a question)?--Jebulon (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Araña. A Estrada, Galiza. 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2010 at 23:13:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo 23:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that it's a good image, but I'm not sure if it can be FP. For me it's my better image with my Canon G10--Miguel Bugallo 23:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miguel Bugallo 23:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background is blown well out of focus, keeping the eye's attention on the spider. Very sharp on the spider's body! LeavXC (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive, bravo !--Jebulon (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Cayambe (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- Will you please explain why, so we can all learn from it? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 06:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Onno Zweers (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good DOF --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice composition too. --Avenue (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --McIntosh Natura (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Samtavisi Cathedral.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2010 at 05:57:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Gaeser - uploaded by User:Gaeser - nominated by User:Gaeser -- George M. (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George M. (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Pretty good, but noisy. I wonder why the creator used ISO 400 in full daylight? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support no complaints :) --Don-kun (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Uninspiring composition and framing. Quality is not the best either and geometric distortion is too imposing. The exposurue choice is indeed weird for the subject and conditions: ISO 400, 1/1000s and F/9. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nhimf (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Front of the building is not sharp[reply]
Support Nice quality, looks like some vignetting at the top? Some of the bare land on the bottom could probably be cropped out. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Limbe river from Camp coq - Haiti.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2010 at 16:09:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Çok öğretici öğeler içermiyor. Ayrıca bulutlar ve gökyüzü oldukça mat renklerden oluşuyor. Kompozisyon da çok başarılı değil. Bu durumda olumlu oy kullanamayacağım. Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tes souhaits! --Citron (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose levels could be improved, needs more detail, either was cropped or downsampled. for those amongst you unaware of turkish or googletranslate - Mulazimoglu criticizes the questionable educational value, the colours in the skies and clouds and the composition. (hope i did get your point, please correct me if not). regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done levels. But what is the problem with the composition? --Citron (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The position of the river and the horizon. The horizon is in the middle of the frame, that gives too much attention to the sky which is not the subject of the picture. On the other hand the horizon is not low enough as to make the sly fully the main character. The river exists the picture too high. It's most interesting feature, that muddy part, is cut off. This means that there is something going on out of the fram that you would like to have inside. The red roof, it is nice to have a red within all that green, but it is placed in a too privileged position and since the river's is not so much it steals attention. The shadow on the left also does its bit on this. Finally, the river is long, not tall, why the portrait? This choice is connected with having too much sky and missing interesting parts of the river. Grinatyou (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Grinatyou. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination You're right! --Citron (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Commons:Featured picture candidates/[reply]

File:Millau et Viaduc.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 16:08:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ritchyblack - uploaded by Ritchyblack - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bridge is copyright protected, no "Freedom of Panorama" in France. This photo might be deleted... Sorry--Jebulon (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

France is copyrighted. Heh, what a crazy world. Grinatyou (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Crazy" is the good word. But as French, I may say that I like very much french spirit ! Funny, isn't it ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if an image violates the FOP you can censor the part of the image with copyright and the image becomes free? strange things.. Ggia (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question can the Commons:De_minimis concept be applied here? Ggia (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that, too. And here it is de minimis imo, so no copyright problem to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Hard to explain in a foreign language. Freedom of panorama and de minimis are anglo-saxon concepts, in use in Common law countries, but absolutely unknown in Roman Law (Civil law ?) countries. On this photo, they are two main subjects (see the name of the file), the city of Millau by night, and the viaduct. The viaduct is not incidental. There is a flagrant copyright violation. Here it is possible to consider that the statue (by Salvador Dali, then copyrighted) is incidental, because my attempt was to show the main courtyard of Château de Pommard (tree, architecture in a traditionnal and famous wine of Burgundy producer, old barrels etc...). I can explain that (with success) to a judicial court in a trial. Notice that I didn't put this image in the (illegal) Category of the sculptures of S.D. Furthermore, the categorization concerning "sculptures in Côte d'Or" was not added by me... Maybe I wanted to get round the law, but who knows ?

. Well, I get you the point it is not very fair, and not very understandable for non latin people, as american, canadian, australian, english (or german sometimes) legal points of view look sometimes very special for latin people... That's why mutual respect is absolutely necessary here, and that's why "Commons" is great, my friends ! --Jebulon (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's a bit difficult to argue that an element that is in the title of the file would be accessory and incidental (as much as I dislike French law on this topic -- which is quite a lot). Rama (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:YellowCorn.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2010 at 18:19:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jonathunder - uploaded by Jonathunder - nominated by Jonathunder -- Jonathunder (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jonathunder (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LeavXC (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about the perspective... are we looking down or across at the ears? Also, do you know the cultivar? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is Zea mays var. indentata, or dented field corn (maize). It is a good example, as it won "best in show" in a Minnesota county fair with many entries in the category. The display box was resting on a shelf at an angle; I positioned the camera to look directly at it from above. Jonathunder (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Support - not anything extraordinary, but straightforward and valuable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- Will you please explain why, so we can all learn from it? Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The corn is in very good quality, but the panel or tray that it's on is not so nice. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is like the typical still life picture. (the panel)Grinatyou (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- Not so good not so bad. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really extraordinary... --Citron (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No problem with the subject. A "banal" or "non extraordinary" subject can make a pretty good featured picture. But the more the subject is "banal", the better photographic technics must be. Something like "strong mitigating reasons". It is not the case here, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sidewalk in Pacifica was destroyed by erosion.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 23:59:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cool composition. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{s}} Neato. lol --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and again: a bit tilted ccw... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- It is dark with lack of enough contrast. Everything but the sign is blurred. Grinatyou (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lack of image quality is not mitigated by extraordinary composition or mood. As pointed out by ~~someone~~ Jebulon, the lighting of the sand is uneven. Horizon is curved. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With the above two. –hover Fly | chat? 13:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The color of the mud is fixed. I cannot agree that "everything but the sign is blurred". It is not. The only thing that is a little bit blurred is the ocean because the waves were moving and this is a time exposure. Everything else is sharp, and it would have been rather strange, if it were blurred with only the sign being sharp. The sign and the staircase were photographed in a single shot. The camera was put at tripod. So with F10 used either everything is blurred or everything is sharp, and IMO it is sharp.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C)

Support Aha! That's it! Much better. Kooritza (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better, nice now --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Image quality did not improve. On the contrary, oversaturated colors don't look natural at this period of the day. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that grass looks too healthy and vibrant for grass growing in clumps by the sea. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  It is about 200 feet above the sea level, and yes, the grass and plants were healthy and blooming just the day before the erosion took 30 feet of the ground at once. Here's one of the images taken 2 months later at the same place, and as you could see the plants are healthy and vibrant: --Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but the grass on this alt is a bit too bright and shiny, real grass doesn't even look like that on a bright day, see note, and then you have to figure it's gonna be that shade but darker because of the time of day and weather. I prefer the colors of the alt so I'm switching my votes I think. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you please tell me, if you like this version better? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That one's nice. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I reverted it to the old version.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For your consideration this is the one I described before with the +15 brightness, not that this nomination is kooky enough. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The saturation was reduced.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- A new subsection should be created for each alternative. This way it is difficult to keep track of what's going on or even to know which version each user has voted in. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support IMO on GIMP it looked nice with the lightness of this version at +15. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- Again, please notice that the concept of "Weak" or "Strong" Support, or Oppose, is not part of FPC voting system and affects the behaviour of the FPC bot. There are other ways of expressing the same ideas, in the text that follows the normal vote. If you want to propose the use of half of double votes please start a thread in FPC talk. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The bot is not the only one who reads the discussion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 11:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, but that's what I feel, and Julian's right, they are often done by hand anyway. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, then maybe may you express your feeling with simple words like Weak support, without using a false template... I wonder how some can complicate very simple things...--Jebulon (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is partly blown-out, and the foreground is way underexposed. I don't think this image meets the exposure requirements of a featured image. --Murdockcrc (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taher Chriaa-edit.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2010 at 17:52:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mohamed Radhouane Kerkeni - uploaded, ~~edited (edits = cropping, partial enlightenment and blurring background)~~ and nominated by — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 17:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as nominator — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 17:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose bad noise treatment. blurring is no convenient solution to reduce noise. please consider using a plugin or another technique. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info I cancelled the blurring effect, this is the original file (I just cleared the left side of the face). Regrards — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 13:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for reverting this blurring technique. some fixations on levels and sharpness and i'll support it. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info

Done — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 20:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for the fast changes. another point of reconsideration may be applying local (eyes, mouth, nose only) instead of global sharpening. give local levels adjustment a chance as well, darkening the chemise and the hair, plus parts of the face could result in higher contrasts. alas, noise is still an issue. would be great if you can make this happen. thanks in advance. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I hope this is a convincing work. Regards — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 15:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support It has some quality problems, but it is FP nomination, not QI, and this is a great portrait.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request : In order to rectify the shot, can I ask for the reason(s) ? — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 20:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Distracting background, poor image quality, washed-out colors. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK with the distracting background, it was a spontaneous moment when the photo was taken, but I don't think that the quality is so poor, however, thanks for voting. — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 20:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- I think it would improve if you would mute the green color of the woman's jacket a bit, and remove the face on the left with a cloning tool. Perhaps cropping a tiny bit on the left would help. -- Onno Zweers (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support i have uploaded a new edit after a talk with habib m'henni. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info created by Mohamed Radhouane Kerkeni - uploaded, edited and nominated by — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 17:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 20:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could still be better... The collar looks a bit damaged by the black blob. And that blob is very black... Doesn't hurt to have some faint detail. Now it looks like a paint job. Sorry to complain again, but I would like it to be good enough for a featured picture! It's a great portrait. ;-) -- Onno Zweers (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination— Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 13:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Traditional cultivation in Bangladesh.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2010 at 10:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Balaram Mahalder - uploaded by Balaram Mahalder - nominated by Bellayet -- Bellayet (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bellayet (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not sure about this one. I love the composition and colours (perhaps a bit oversaturated though), but the crop on the left is bit tight, and there is motion blur (both on the animals from their own motion and the background from the photographer's motion). I am not referring to the cow's legs (I like the way they are blurred, shows movement) but the heads and bodies of the cows and the farmer should be in sharp focus. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Agree with Whale. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a case where in my opinion, context and content rule over technical quality. Yes, there is motion blurr, from camera and subjects, but so what? The moment, the place, the life style is so different for some of us, and this picture transports us to that place, and with probably more visual quality than what we may perceive in person. That is value. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Everything is ok with this picture. The colors are also wonderful. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The farmer should be shown in full (educational value) and colors are a bit oversaturated. This does not diminish in any way the beauty of the picture (my opinion)— Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 15:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but too tight crop at bottom, oversaturated to me. Us Whale--Miguel Bugallo 17:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tomascastelazo. Stellarkid (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Western Snowy Plover , Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus at Ocean Beach at low tide.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2010 at 15:53:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nice composition, but imo too unsharp for this file size and some cloning errors?! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no cloning done on the image, so there cannot be errors. The birds are very, very small, and very, very fast moving. The image is not of an individual birds, but of flock of birds. It was not down sampled. It was only cropped. The note you added: It is just a reflection of one bird and the real (other bird) got together (no error there)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- İlk başta oldukça ilgi çekse de boyut olarak rahatsız edici. Geniş olması hoş durmuyor. Ancak güzel bir çalışma. Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Why is this picture showing larger than all the others? A bug in the template? Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not a bug in the template. The nom is setup as a default "landscape", which fixes its height to 300px. Its aspect ratio is somewhat in between landscape and panorama, which makes its displayed area larger than the nom immediately below it. The nom above it has been setup as landscape, although it is really a portrait (which is normally displayed with a pixel width of 300px). Thus, that one is shown too small. --Slaunger (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fajne zdjęcie słitttasne :P x3 x3 :D <3 <3 loffciam tom fotkeee :3 -- No anonymous votes, please -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, sorry. I like it a lot and would support if it wasn't for the brown haloes around the birds. --Avenue (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I do not see any halos around the birds. Maybe something with my eyes or my monitor.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see a brownish halo extending up to five pixels out from each bird. They're kind of faint, but they're there. I've added an image note outlining the halo around one of the birds near the centre. The background inside the outline definitely looks browner to me than the background just outside it (except near the beak and tail). --Avenue (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support love it... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment probably a more space in the right side will enhance the composition of this image.. (cloning job is easy here) Ggia (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit 1 per Ggia[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it has also more vivid blue color.. Ggia (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why two chances for this picture ? It is not the same (size ?), it is another confusing nomination --Jebulon (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that's why you're opposing not because of the image itself, but because of "confusing nomination"? I improved the composition adding more to the right hand side as Ggia suggested. I was told not to overwrite an old version with a new one, so that's why I added this alternative, which is a different crop of the same image. Everything is within the rules. Anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a different crop of the same image is not the same image, especially if it adds something. It is another time another problem with another confusing nomination. Maybe before another withdrawn ?

You said I improved the composition etc.... Are you sure it is an improvement ? Will you "edit" after every comment ? Please more blue ? Please more birds ? Please more sharpness ? In my opinion, you must have to nominate at first the good one, or re-upload, or withdraw, or wait. I request you friendly: please don't be so reactive, we've got the time, let your first nomination live its life entirely, and alone, until the end ! Rework your photo, try improvements on your computer, and if not featured at first time, try another time with explanations. I'm sorry, as a newbie, to say this to an 'old' and experimented contributor. You know that I respect really your work here, and there is nothing personal. But yes, I oppose. We need peace and not sources of eternal conflicts. May I suggest you, if you want to answer, to do it maybe on my talk page ? Thx --Jebulon (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

too bad about the withdrawal. I liked it. ;) Stellarkid (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Culasse canon 12 ca.1730 Invalides.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2010 at 22:08:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me - Melt down and cast by foundry Jean Maritz in Lyon, 1736-- Jebulon (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this very baroque cascabel of an old cannon, named "Le Tonnerre" (Thunder)-- Jebulon (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. Sorry Jebulon!--Paris 16 (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It looks special to me. Sorry to disappoint you.--Jebulon (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But I am disappointed by your judgement. Nothing special is a bit "light" for an opposition. I don't understand what it means. Bad technical quality (compo, color, sharpness, contrast) ? Bad subject ? When I've not interest in a picture, I don't vote...--Jebulon (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality, and it is an interesting subject. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Can we brighten the "face" a bit, or otherwise tweak the lighting to make the detail pop out better? In thumbnail, at first glance, I didn't see the half of how detailed this piece is. There's a lot of texture there, but it's hiding. It's a very good subject and sharp image otherwise, and I like it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many thanks for kind and very careful review. I'm not sure I understand very well what you mean/want. The thumbnail gives only an Idea, and this photo is made to be seen at a high scale, maybe full screen. I tried many improvements before uploading, and I supposed I've got the good balance now. I'm afraid for loosing details if I change something. Could you please be more precise ? Thank you very much anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think there should be some more contrast, or maybe some more fill light on the "face", especially to bring out the eyes. Ideally I'd have shot with flash or main light source to the side of the "face" part of the cascabel; I know that's probably not practical, but just wanted to illustrate the effect I'd have preferred to see with such an intricately textured object. I know we shoot images to stand on their own, but I think overall usefulness should always be a consideration; even in thumbnail or alongside text, the image ought to grab your eye, and this image didn't immediately do that for me. I'm not saying that I oppose: I rather like this image. Maybe I'm speaking from a different sort of criticism than usually comes out in FP, and if so I apologize. I just think that the image can do more. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure I understand very well... Your criticism is good enough, and no need for apologies. I must just say that it is not a studio shot, and I think that an "artsy" point of view is not convenient for this kind of object... But we are discussing here about matter of taste...--Jebulon (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- Will you please explain why, so we can all learn from it? Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- There is, what I think it is, a shadow of a particle on your lens on the right of the face. The rest looks good to me. Grinatyou (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for review. If you put a note on it, I'll try to correct the issue, and then surely obtain your support vote !--Jebulon (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I already put a note on the picture. Grinatyou (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have good eyes ! I tried to remove the "thing" (not sure it was a dust spot on the lens). Thanks anyway, it is better now.--Jebulon (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Grinatyou (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 16:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely example of Baroque whimsy. Rope is a bit distracting, but I suppose that can't be helped. Jonathunder (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThanks for review. I agree about the rope. It cannot be removed, it is ugly and seems to me to be absolutely useless !! But it is here... --Jebulon (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like the subject, but I love the detail. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The exposure is not the best.--Citron (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- QuestionWhat is to be improved, please ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The light should comes from the photographer to put highlight the face of cannon. --Citron (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explanation. I understand what you mean. It was not possible here.--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ggia (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Emblemariopsis carib (Caribbean Flagfin Blenny).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2010 at 11:21:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nick Hobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me want to go back to the aquarium. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Really good. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great photo taken in apparently difficult circumstances (low light? tiny & moving subject). What are those fascinating things in the background? -- Onno Zweers (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Impressive, but only a third (the main one, ok) of the picture is sharp...--Jebulon (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 16:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wertuose (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good job --The Photographer (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 20:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd like to support this very nice picture, but the image description is too incomplete. Something about the background creatures (anemones?) is needed. --Avenue (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please add information about the background. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdLoveOne (talk • contribs)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Copal Madagascar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2010 at 16:33:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by archaeodontosaurus - nominated by archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poor bugs. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- Will you please explain why, so we can all learn from it? Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are you sure the top insect is a syrphid fly? The wing type and venation don't match. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have these pieces of copal, in collections for years and I kept the names which had been given me. I'll make more precise shots of each Element in order to identify specimens with more accuracy ... and I'll submit them. This first photo is there to show the copal as a material.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A different color background might've been better so it wouldn't show off so much shadow, other than the shadows I like this a lot. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Might be better...Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support even I would prefer without lighting shadows.. I would prefer diffusion light conditions.. Ggia (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Disagree with THFSW: now these bugs are eternal !--Jebulon (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Arbouse.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2011 at 15:30:21 (UTC)

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- New version Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where is the timestamp, that shows when the nomination period ends? --Snaevar (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamp fixed --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not in focus and noisy. W.S. 15:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetenschatje (talk • contribs) 15:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO unatural. The leaves seem to be as sharp as blades. Also, I disagree with W.S. on lack of focus, since it´s quite clear that this picture has undergone Focus stacking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaevar (talk • contribs) 13:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I had a second look and focus is not the correct word. I rather meant sharpness. Most of the leaves have a soft edge unless they are not bordering the black background. I just don't like it, that's all. W.S. 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  - "I don't like it" and other empty assessments are unhelpful. Please please avoid them and see Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Voting for more guidance. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If many people "don't like it", then maybe it is not good enough? Stating my comments are empty and unhelpful is rather rude. Do you only expect support votes on this forum or is it allowed to disagree with the sheep too? W.S. 07:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Result is not promoted. 66.666^–% opposed it. Ebe123 (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jabal Ram Peak.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2010 at 04:12:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Svíčková - nominated by me -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to nominate this for a while. Good pic but I change my mind (if someone else wants to take it instead go right ahead and cross my SN out as nominator, just remove this withdraw template). --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20101106 Galata Tower Istanbul Turkey Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2010 at 19:47:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the landscape is under fog -- Ggia (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very good, but it seems a bit tilted ccw to me --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support as long as there are no stitching errors, would be strong if it weren't so cloudy (or is that smog?) --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- colors are weak and the picture is not so clear but it is teaching and technically very good. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not the best meteorologic conditions for this kind of shot, resulting in washed-out colors and poor detail. Geometric distortion is obvious in the right part of the horizon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is the 'magic' of this photo.. the fog that part of the details are hidden. and in Istanbul (en:Istanbul#Climate) it is not exceptional to have fog.. so this weather conditions (colors etc) are not exceptional.. Ggia (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and what about the tilt/distortion(s)? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
till 16/11 I am traveling.. and I cannot re-stitch the images to see if it can be corrected.. this distortion is in the right side.. and I don't consider it as a fatal flaw. But as soon as I will have access to the source images (16/11) I will try to correct it. Ggia (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Wertuose (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info the image has been updated.. no tilt-distortions in the right side. Ggia (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support now --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support why not! --Citron (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, to me the fog doesn't make the scene seem magical, just dirty and polluted. --Avenue (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well made realistic photograph under difficult climatic conditions. The smog is reality in Istanbul, therefore it is ok to show it. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if the right part (the boat alone) looks "unnecessary" to me, because out of the main subject. Very sharp at high resolution, good corrections IMO. Very illustrative and informative. I personally appreciate very much the choice of re-uploading improved versions after the beginning of the review, with Info to the reviewers, instead of "alternative" versions. It is fair and "clean" (literal and figurative sense of this word). Everybody can understand what happen, and the quality of the image increases. I hope this way should be a rule...--Jebulon (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually what I like most in this image is the boat alone in th right side with the smoke coming out of the chimney ;-). The direction of the boat is to the left (the boat is situated in the right side), and balances the composition. (IMO) Ggia (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean. Matter of taste, then...I didn't say "ugly" though, I wrote "unnecessary", between "-"--Jebulon (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ruinas de la iglesia de San Pedro de Aldealbar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2010 at 21:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rastrojo _(D•ES) - uploaded by Rastrojo _(D•ES) - nominated by Rastrojo _(D•ES) -- Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I believe the post-processing was too aggressive (sharpening and/or smoothing). The vines in the foreground appear smeared. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--vines more prominent in the picture than anything else. Grinatyou (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- as above.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wertuose (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't like the vines? Crop 'em. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ancient ruins and modern vineyards. Nice composition --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Maurilbert for technics, and per opponents for composition. I don't know what is the subject of this picture.--Jebulon (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose,乱--shizhao (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Grinatyou. could as well need some more sharpness. reshooting in the morning/evening will prevent from harsh shadows. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 17:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bush Cockroach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2010 at 21:19:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cyron Ray Macey - uploaded by Boricuaeddie - nominated by 190.248.177.127 -- 190.248.177.127 21:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 190.248.177.127 21:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Please log in to vote. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The head and antennae are out of focus, and it is very noisy, sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the meaning of noisy? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.248.177.127 (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
See image noise. Jafeluv (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Correct, particularly the head is out of focus. Macro photography is very strict in that the depth of field is very shallow. Macro photographers should pay special attention to having the essential element of the subject in sharp focus. In my opinion, the head should have been razor-sharp!--Murdockcrc (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Nice lighting and colors, but DOF is too shallow for Commons' insanely high bug standards. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I see no noise, and I like the shallow DOF. –hover Fly | chat? 21:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Murdockcrc. some noise in the bokeh is fine - better than a blurred background. the image was shot with ISO 100 - seems to be the least noise possible with the camera. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flowers in a corner.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2010 at 06:57:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little educational value. --Спас Колев (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. Nice mix of colors. --Mile (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Спас Колев. Can you identified the specie ? --Citron (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, and lot's of educational value. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I appreciate the composition and colors. I think there's an educational value is in the state of degradation of the walls in addition to the bouquet of flowers. — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 16:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No need of immense panorama for a Wow. Thanks to Tomascastelazo.--Jebulon (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Athyllis (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. Could someone point me to the rule about "educational"? thx Stellarkid (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Little/poor/no educational value is generally used here to decline a good picture you dislike --Jebulon (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is not so great, and I've seen much more interesting floral arrangements. mgeo talk 16:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MadGeographer. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but underexposed to me (dark areas)--Miguel Bugallo 01:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dark areas? In a normal scene, there can be dark, medium and light areas, it is all about tonal distribution. Given a good exposure and subjects encompasing the entire tonal range, a dark subject in a shadow will of course be underexposed... ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Habib. @Miguel Bugallo looking at the histogram reveals no signs of underexposure. monitor calibration might be an issue for you. please check your hardware and software to assure that you can see all four circles or at least three. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anthemis April 2010-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2010 at 15:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Second try. What can I say? I love this picture! Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose seems a little bit oversaturated, and I would prefer a better background. Ggia (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info previous nomination is here [13]. Ggia (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but bad background. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a side note (no complaints): the background is the best of the picture imo :). Also, saturation was not increased. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like the colors of the background and they don't interfere or distract my eyes from the yellow and sharp subject. It could be oversaturated, I say that meaning I could understand how someone could think that, it exist as a possibility and I could be wrong, but to me it does seem natural. It's pretty. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, Joaquim Alves. This photo has been reviewed and not featured. 7 support, 6 oppose is clear result. It is incorrect second nomination IMO. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if somebody whants to nominate again an image a simpler method should be found.. not re-uploading the image on commons and nominate as a FP. It is simply a waste of resources to have two indentical images uploaded in commons. Ggia (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- I have already explained to Ggia, in a similar case, that the same image was used. @George Chernilevsky, nothing in the rules prevents re-nominations and pictures have been promoted this way. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice colors. The color of the background is completely different from the subject, so it's not a problem for me. mgeo talk 16:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow for me and not so good photo. Sorry --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Araneus trifolium and its web with fog droplets at Twin Peaks in San Francisco.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2010 at 18:56:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition, superb bokeh, shot in a convincing situation. keep on rollin'. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Onno Zweers (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp. Athyllis (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot expect every droplet to be sharp. The spider is very sharp.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's impossible to make the droplets sharper. Athyllis (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is quite impossible to do at least in a single shot. One could take many shots with a different focus and to stack the images together in a photo shop, but in this particular situation it was hardly an option. The spider was moving, and the slight wind was moving the web and all the droplets on it. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With larger F-number I think it would be possible, or take series of snaps. Athyllis (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice :-) --Muhammad (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support— Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 23:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Amazing job! --McIntosh Natura (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support When an image is really good, no need of long and confusing discussions...--Jebulon (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --Avenue (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neato! Stellarkid (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! --Phyrexian (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Partagás Culebras edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2010 at 20:01:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Support thanks to the inspiring work of User:Rama and User:Llez.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 20:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even I'm no more a smoker, I like it (as picture only...). And the idea is very good. Unfortunately it is unsharp for part (DOF problem IMO).--Jebulon (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unsharp? Must be looking at a different picture than me. Don't support their usage, but if we're gonna have pictures of drugs they might as well be good I suppose. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please have a look on annotation. Concerns the lid and the paper--Jebulon (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well the label, yes, because of the angle, but the main subject is very good and do we really care about the brand label? I might agree with you if it's supposed to be historic. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i created a whole set of pictures - even including the brand label. there will be other focuses, so in the end anyone gets his share. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 04:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the oof-parts are not really important, not really disturbing and even with a larger DOF you can't get them really sharp (at most focus stacking...). I think the framing could be a bit tighter, but otherwise nice composition and very good quality. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Funky focusing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the idea behind this dof was the hint within the guidelines, which actually encourages using a shallow depth of field and focusing on the main subject. this cigar comes along within this wooden box and i therefore used it as part of the image. but be aware that the box and extras itself are not main subject of the image and therefore out of focus. global focus may be useful for other objects/subjects - this particular image has an artistic attempt trying to provide the illusion of depth, for there is only black background. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 04:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Would prefer if the whole thing were focused but support anyway. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 23:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Time of harvest in village of Lug - Serbia.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2010 at 17:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by PetarM -- Mile (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting, the subject is in shadow. Bad composition--Miguel Bugallo 00:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support cause it's interesting and sort of sentimental/whimsical to me, reminds me of an autumn season artwork. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the little cat — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 23:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this image meets the composition requirements of a FP. The composition is uninteresting. --Murdockcrc (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have sentimental bond to the composition and for me picture is interesting. No oversaturation, colors are natural. -- Bojan Talk 02:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the post-processing seems a bit awkward. could you upload the ooc (out of camera) file for compare? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Not much to see, sky noise is leveled also roof and sky lightness is leveled as tractor is not on sun - low ligth. Sky curve also moved to more blue and roof to red. Other intact. --Mile (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:15-40-45-ouv-g.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2010 at 19:54:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nothing outstanding here that deserves to be featured. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per The High Fin Sperm WhaleMulazimoglu (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Filename needs to be more descriptive. Also, per HFSW. LeavXC (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campfire and sparks in Anttoora 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2010 at 10:21:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 10:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A campfire and its sparks. I tried multiple different setups and IMO this was one of the best results. —kallerna™ 10:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LeavXC (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agree it is the best! Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Avenue (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
by pure interest: what kind of wood were you burning there? It looks like a lot of sparks for a half second long exposure time... Is my guess right that it was a resin rich (like spruce) or humid firewood? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not 100%-sure, but I think it was pinewood. —kallerna™ 10:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support –hover Fly | chat? 17:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 08:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it! --Phyrexian (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous! Steven Walling 03:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Duisburg, Theater Duisburg, 2010-11 CN-I.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 13:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. Frontage view on the municipal theatre of Duisburg.
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Nice monument and good composition, even a perfect central position should be better in this case. But it is too dark (the steps) and ~~very~~ noisy, even on thumbnail (between the capitals of the columns for example). I'm sorry. --Jebulon (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't like the dark steps, too... I think very noisy is a bit exaggerated, but there are some grainy parts, that's right. I'm going to try to make some corrections at the original. Thanks for reviewing --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remove the "very", maybe exaggerated, sorry. IMO it is only a question of bad light, I'm sure you can reshot it by the way it is a very little bit tilted ccw, too...The base of the pediment is not perfectly horizontal Kannsts du auch den Text uebersetzen, bitte ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I uploaded a new version 2. what should I translate? which text? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my oppose vote. Please have a look on the annotation, thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für Schiller--Jebulon (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is still tilted.--Jebulon (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte! I try to find someone who can translate it for me in English, because it's not easy (1. my English is bad and 2. the old German (~1800) was very, very strange and geschwollen, hifalutin...) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC) PS: I will correct the tilt[reply]

I would prefer looking for an English translation of Schiller's phrase. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Onno Zweers (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I usually don't like cloudy pics, but I like the lights shining mildly on the building like they are here. I also think the apparent earlier rain helped deter people from crowding and driving all around it. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shooting on rainy days prevents hard shadows. but i think to get the "wow factor" as mentioned in the guidelines, the rainy day is not good enough. moreover this picture was downsampled, the original resolution would be nice to have. please reconsider working on the levels. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info from this source [14]

“	Drama (with a double mask): With all its depths, with all its heights serence, I life's great map before thy view unroll. When thou hast once the world's great drama seen, Thou comest back more rich to thine own soul; For whoso thus surveys the whole finds rest, And ends the vexing strife within his breast.	”
—The Homage of the Arts, Schiller

Comment Schiller's german might be very, very strange from our anachronistic point of view. still i think that using the term geschwollen in this context is rather pejorativ. please be aware that Schiller's literature forms a great part of germany's cultural identity and whether understandable or not geschwollen is not appropriate. i wouldn't either call Shakespeare's works hifalutin. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support not perfect, but very good and FP imo. -- Felix König ✉ 19:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose insufficient visual impact IMO. Probably related to the colours and lighting. --99of9 (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abandoned concrete factory mechanism.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 16:08:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diacritica - uploaded by Diacritica - nominated by Diacritica -- Diacritica (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diacritica (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support And please notice that there is a special category for abandoned buildings in Spain...--Jebulon (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Thanks.--Diacritica (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The shadow on the upper right is a bit heavy until you go full-res. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lighting is not the best and composition is a bit too cluettered for my taste. A lot of artifacts around the edges of the unfocused parts, which is unexpected with this camera. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those artifacts might have been caused in post-processing while minimizing noise but are rather irrelevant in this photo.--Diacritica (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice composition --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like the movement in the photo. Stellarkid (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Athyllis (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Support This image meets the technical requirements of a FP. What needs to be sharp, is razor-sharp, color is beautiful, saturation is adequate, lighting is great, and the contrast is ideal. Great work.This is an anonymous vote, sorry --Jebulon (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, composition too cluttered on left. --Avenue (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Adršpašské skály (Adersbacher Felsenstadt) by Pudelek 04 - climbers.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 16:50:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Onno Zweers (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support some chromatic aberrations, but otherwise very good in composition and quality. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This new version with CA removed--Jebulon (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, but neither the composition or the quality are convincing. What we see is not enough for getting a precise idea of what is going on. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Climbers...--Jebulon (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but climbing what? Could be a rock on the beach or a tiny detail of a very high mountain. There is no sense of scale in this picture. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't understand what you mean with "no sense of scale". Two men seems to be a good scale to me, I don't need other "scale", and what is really this rock face doesn't not matter IMO. The texture of the rock is nice, the light is good, the compo looks dynamic enough to me... Concerning scale: do you think that this picture without sky, and then only with rock (a contrario) should be more acceptable, for instance ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with Alvesgaspar. I can't tell how high up they are. Is this a small plastic climbing wall or a thousand-foot high mountain? So I have to vote Oppose too. Sorry, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        A small plastic wall ? I've never seen a so big small plastic wall. Very funny.--Jebulon (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Adršpašské skály (Adršpach-Teplice Rocks) - yes, this is "certainly" the same plastic --Pudelek (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Jebulon: The High Fin Sperm Whale explained almost exactly what I meant, better than I (excepting the "plastic thig" idea...) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar. Athyllis (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we need to see the top of the pillar IMO. --99of9 (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Holodiscus discolor 3007.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 18:49:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Walter Siegmund - nominated by me -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is too dark, sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree with THFSW. A dark background looks very good to me, especially for a clear (and very sharp) subject. But shame of the cut off leave...--Jebulon (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Agree with Jebulon on the dark background. But not on the sharpness, the subject seems quite blurred to me. Which is a shame because the composition is nice. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not blurry, it's a bunch of clusters of white flowers with white stigmas and yellowish stamens and centers. If you look closely the stems are pinkish with white fuzz that I thought was captured very well considering. I know CFPC is very critical of these types of images, but I thought you guys would appreciate the dark background giving deep contrast to the bright flowers. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Okay, you convinced me , and I appreciated the contrast between white flowers and dark background enough to support the nomination --Mbz1 (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the contrast. –hover Fly | chat? 13:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good bokeh, nice depth of field. the light and setting seem to be natural - the contrast is uber. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- But I would remove that little twig below the leaf though. -- Onno Zweers (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you, reviewers, for the helpful comments. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KosovoMirusha.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 21:09:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Flutur Gërbeshi - uploaded by Mdupont - nominated by Mdupont -- 81.210.237.201 21:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdupont (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition, but there is 1. a hose in the picture, 2. severe purple fringing, and 3. badly blown sky. I know it's difficult shooting in such conditions were there's a strong contrast between light and dark. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with THFSW. Keep on anyway !--Jebulon (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- 1. the hose is not a bug, but a feature, it is part of the communist legacy being documented. The sky and fringe we can talk about, I will pass the comments on to Flutur. Please Note that we have collected hundreds of photos of Kosovo in our competition that is just starting. BestPictureOfKosovoForWikipediaContest We have a facebook and a flickr group and also many archive.org albums that have to be processed and selected. If anyone wants to help with this sorting and selecting process it would be great. Mdupont (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- User:Fluflu Just wanted to let you know that i took this photo very randomly with my cell phone because my professional camera died just when I arrived in Mirusha. I appreciate the comments a lot! Fluflu (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As Whale, plus an obvious tilt. Nice composition though. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting subject, nice composition... but heavy chromatic aberration on upper rocks, falling water and tree foliage. Probably unavoidable with a mobile phone lens in such difficult light conditions. Sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is totally blown out. There is a very strong magenta hue on the rocks on the upper middle of the frame, and the fringing on the tree leaves (against the sky) is very very strong.
Oppose The sky is totally wrong color. --Aktron (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old cathedral Porto.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 16:47:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diacritica - uploaded by Diacritica - nominated by Diacritica -- Diacritica (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diacritica (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please try to categorize this picture at a good level: there is a special category for Romanesque capitals in Portugal, for instance--Jebulon (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

OK, done. Thanks for the tip.--Diacritica (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Underexposed and not sharp enough for a still subject. Geometric distortion could also be fixed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the object was located in a very dark side chamber next to the cloister. If anything, I would say it was overexposed :-) I tried to find the balance between light and the real subject.--Diacritica (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The quality's not too, too bad and artistic though the angle may be it's not particularly educational, doesn't teach me much about the column or excite me enough to support. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SinanPasha.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 18:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Drilon5 - uploaded by Drilon5 - nominated by Mdupont -- Mdupont (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdupont (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Drilon5 (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gentthaqi (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor image quality and geometric distortion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Love the colors and the light and the hazy distant houses on the hill, but the foreground is too distracting. It seems a crop was made to try to improve it but another point of view would be a better solution. And it's not sharp enough. -- Onno Zweers (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar--Jebulon (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bresta (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just feel like this belongs with the FPX... –hover Fly | chat? 13:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my English isn't very good, but I think you mean oppose, don't you? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose poor quality, poor lightning, poor composition. Maybe good enough to illlustrate an article, but far away from featured, sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I wonder if any of the supporters opened the picture in full size and saw how poor its quality is! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective distortion at left, unsharp at full resolution. distracting (unavoidable?) structure at lower right. Very interesting subject nevertheless. User:Cayambe 16:05, 14 November 2010
Oppose speechless. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as before … —DerHexer (Talk) 19:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zeke (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2010-10-09 Arlbergtunnel.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 22:09:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Siegele Roland - uploaded by Siegele Roland - nominated by Kürschner -- Kürschner (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kürschner (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stellarkid (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 23:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — is geolocation possible? Jonathunder (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Geolocation and a more detailed description are now online. Thanks for your support. Siegele Roland (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--shizhao (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- But not completely sharp though. -- Onno Zweers (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality (unsharp, noisy, blurry) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:African Grey Parrot, peeking out from under its wing.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 00:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Avenue - uploaded by Avenue - nominated by Avenue -- Avenue (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Avenue (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 13:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Very nice and original composition. But I think the image would improve by increasing contrast (as to darken shades) and saturation. Yes, I tried and it worked. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that does help a lot. Alt version added below. --Avenue (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I prefer this one. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I conceive that some contrast improvement would be nice - but Alvesgaspar's version is too much on that point for me. Maybe the half of these contrast and saturation adjustments would do really well for me, or a blending of the two versions in Photoshop. The African Grey Parrot is my favourite kind of bird - too sad that Alex has died 3 years ago...Grand-Duc (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was Alvesgaspar's, but the execution was mine, so if the edit is clumsy or excessive then I'm the one to blame. --Avenue (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

Support --Avenue (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yes! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny --Schnobby (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative. Nice too --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh yes, definitively! --Murdockcrc (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't understand the colors of the image --Miguel Bugallo 00:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Onno Zweers (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why two chances for this picture ? --Jebulon (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was probably too hasty in putting this up. I did try to improve it first, and didn't get very far, but with a bit more thought maybe I might have figured out how.
However I don't feel adding the edit really gave the photo "two chances". If anything, supporters seem to be divided between the two versions, so perhaps it would be truer to say each version has half the chance of an undiluted nomination. --Avenue (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see Slaunger recently expressed a similar view: [15] --Avenue (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue, you have done nothing wrong, and there's nothing for you to be sorry about. jebulon is opposing nominations and trying to implement his own rules that are even sillier than the ones we have now. The only reason to oppose an image should be am image itself. Opposing a nomination for anything else is just a bad tone.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I think that adding a subsection for an edit is the standard procedure. I was not apologising for doing that, but for posting my original image here too hastily, and thus failing to "prepare carefully" in Alvesgaspar's words. --Avenue (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: I think that showing a different version as a subsection is a better solution. Much better than uploading on top of the previous version, because nobody will know to which version the votes apply (we had a typical example of that mess recently). However, this should be used with parcimony as it is the responsability of the nominator only to choose and prepare carefully the images before presenting them to the forum. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Alvesgaspar's points. I partially disagree with Mbz1. I don't think Jebulon's ideas for rule changes are silly. They should be given the respect that we give all those who contribute in good faith. But they should be discussed at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. Only the image should be discussed here. I would remind Jubulon, ne pas désorganiser Wikipédia pour une argumentation personnelle (en:WP:POINT). Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice. I prefer this one, the contrastiness is just right -- very bright and charming picture. Great detail Stellarkid (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Incredible... --Phyrexian (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportAlanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:African Grey Parrot, peeking out from under its wing - edit.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Homalocantha anatomica 01.jpg

File:Purple mangosteen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 14:24:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by SMasters - uploaded by SMasters - nominated by –hover Fly | chat? 14:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator –hover Fly | chat? 14:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The right image is not sharp enough, and with some blown highlights, the left one is too dark to see the details.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacking sharpness and focus. bad lightning - using a direct flash should be avoided. using diffuse light (e.g. daylight or bouncing) could improve the light situation. suffers from ISO 800 (chromatic and luminance noise). good composition and educational value though - a reshoot should not be difficult. if metadata for the lense/flash/other equipment SMasters used creating this image is available - please be so kind as to add them. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hot air balloons in leon.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2010 at 21:15:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, would be even better with dust spots removed :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice and maybe featurable picture, but the very high number of dustspots is incompatible with an useful candidacy as FP, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but dust spots. Plus, the sky and clouds a very noisy (don't no why, considering it was taken with a full-frame at only ISO 400). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dust spots removed, camera sensor cleaned! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting rid of the dust, however, it doesn't fix the noise problem. Maybe softening a little would help. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- Super but noise problem is true...Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too noisy. I don't understand ISO 400 for a day shot --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common kestrel falco tinnunculus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 21:01:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Merops - uploaded by Merops - nominated by McIntosh Natura -- McIntosh Natura (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- McIntosh Natura (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-- Looks sooo good. The feathers are not so sharp though. Will check other featured birds. Grinatyou (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp enough for me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Unfortunate framimg. Shouldn't be too difficult to add a little more space to the right. so that the poor thing's tail can breathe... Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although I think I will give it some more. Grinatyou (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast! Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that? It took me only 1 minute since you posted your comment (22:46) until I posted mine (22:47). Notice that it takes some time to read your comment and post mine. ;) Nah, I was at it before you said it. Grinatyou (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi? :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like most the previous version [16].. that the bird is not in the center of the frame and the image looks more balanced IMO. Ggia (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose creamy bokeh, but needs a rework on the levels. the original upload was a picture created with a Canon EOS 40D. the current version (and all older versions) were downsampled to "increase" the quality and remove the effects of ISO 500, which was used creating this picture. I would support an original resolution version with improved levels. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I swear to the Olympic gods I didn't downsampled it, JPG did. I did crop it to get rule of thirds with that eye. The levels is easy to correct but (I didn't understand your writing) do you oppose the creaminess of the background? I regret to say that can't do anything about that without doing "excessive digital manipulation". Grinatyou (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am even more intrigued in seeing your own images now after I saw you have the latest photoshop

--Mbz1 (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about this image. CS5 was released on April 2010. Grinatyou (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment creamy bokeh refers to a good bokeh, so for your Olympic gods' sake don't change it. and yes i see that you was not the one downsampling the image - perhaps i should be more precise here: the first version uploaded by Merops was downsampled (and perhaps as well cropped) from 3888 × 2592 to 1132 × 1814. all newer versions are based on this and therefore they are downsampled/cropped as well. hope you get my point here. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 07:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I (intentionally) forgot your objections on the image because supports are coming alone. The correction on the levels will be done before the end. I am just waiting to see if the author brings the original to work on it or maybe he/she does the whole work. I don't like when some problem doesn't get solved because enough supports came to get featured. Grinatyou (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - LeavXC (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Stellarkid (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- nice, although resolution is really on the limit (particularly given that the subject is only 1/4 of the image), and high compression rate. Elekhh (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 20:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The background is heavily posterized in this version, which it isn't in the original upload. The cloning on the right is imho also pretty obvious in various areas. Sting (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Onno Zweers (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The.famefactory (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spirit of Music.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2010 at 20:39:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by me - uploaded by me - nominated by me -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background very disturbing and distorted (needs a perspective correction). Some overexposed parts (hand, building left), very noisy at high resolution, and maybe a too hard sharpening (not sure).--Jebulon (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. Ayrıca crop ve kompozisyon başarısız. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't the appropriate {{PD-ineligible}} tag be added? Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't this sculpture still protected by copyright? It was erected after 1 January 1923 and the sculptor died less than 50 years ago. Please see COM:L for more. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is PD and a tag has been added, but

I withdraw my nominationAlanscottwalker (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caricature gillray plumpudding.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2010 at 04:31:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by James Gillray - Hi-res uploaded by Eubulides - nominated by me -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to support this well-known caricature here in "Commons". This nomination is a very good idea. Very high quality image, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --McIntosh Natura (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 18:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support :) Stellarkid (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great historically educational media. Steven Walling 03:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FieldMarine (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chalcolithic knife-MHNT PRE.2009.0.243.1-black.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2010 at 06:47:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Knife blade with multiple notches. Silex.

Stage : Chalcolithic/ ca 2600 BCE
Locality : Dolmen of Viala, Saint-Léon, Aveyron
Former collection of Émile Cartailhac (1845 - 1921)
Muséum of Toulouse MHNT.PRE.2009.0.243.1
Size : 110x36x10 mm
Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain -- Rama (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is a gradient in the background (should be solid black). dof is not convincing (either smaller aperture or focus stacking). regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Soybean cyst nematode and egg SEM.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2010 at 17:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ??? - uploaded by Steff - nominated by 190.248.177.127 -- 190.248.177.127 17:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 190.248.177.127 17:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please log in before voting --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something like a size comparison, a benchmark would be nice imo... I can't really envisage how big it is with the information scanning with electron micrograph [...] Magnified 1,000 times. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ra'ike T C 12:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The image is pixelated and I doubt that it came this way form the microscope camera. I also agree with kaʁstn that some scale is needed here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Guess it's good enough for microscopic. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- For a microscopic picture it is good enough. But, I also agree with kaʁstn and Alvesgaspar: some scale is needed here!. --VS (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hinterwald Cattle Hinterzarten.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2010 at 11:01:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Hinterwald Cattle is an old local breed of cattle in the Black Forest in Germany.

The breed is remarkable by its small size (it is the smallest breed of cattle in Europe) and is well adapted to harsh environmental conditions, such as cold winters, sloping pastures and frugal diet. Despite a recent breeding program, the breed is still in danger of extinction.

Support -- Cayambe (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi. As the first reviewer, I don't want to oppose it straight away but want to give you the following input on why I don't think this is featured-image quality. 1) The background is very noisy. 2) The background is considerably underexposed. 3) The composition is not interesting enough to be a FI (the subject is right in the middle, with the classical standing-photographer perspective).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdockcrc (talk • contribs)

That's fine, but a signature would be fine anyway. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- The quality of the image is amazing and it is clear to me that this is a QI. What I like less is the line between the grass and the trees, in the background. It would so much better if the whole background were green! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if every picture can be better... Well. The Main subject is perfectly taken, sharp and well exposed IMO. It seems to show the characteristics of the breed. It has furthermore a high encyclopedic value. The background is not so bad IMO, and shows where the cow lives. FP to me.--Jebulon (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Thanks for the nice image. I agree the background could be cleaner or more interesting. However, what would make a true FP for me would be to somehow illustrate "the smallest breed of cattle in Europe" visually - it would be great to have a comparison point or sense of scale. --99of9 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a high quality, educational and valuable photo, but I find the light a little dull, the background a little too distracting and the composition too regular to make it pass over my cow FP bar, see e.g. File:CH cow 2.jpg for comparison. Also lacks a sense of scale to show the point that the breed is small. This is not at all evident from the photo itself. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great to have a decent photo of a rare breed, but this is quite dull composition and lighting compared to the other cattle photos already Featured (such as this, this, and this). Steven Walling 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the two comments above. I think the composition is not great enough to be a FP, it is dull and very conventional. I add this to be initial review above and cannot vote for it. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dieselpump Preem Avesta.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2010 at 08:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- V-wolf (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- V-wolf (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe not the biggest wow-factor, but good quality, EV, nice colors, clearly an over-average night shot. FP to me --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support totally agree with Carschten.--Jebulon (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one. --Aktron (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support superb colour contrast and high ev. sharpness and focus could be better, but what are the odds getting a reshot with the same mood? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 13:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done photo. Sehr gut --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! You've shown that an everyday, and usually visually unattractive subject can be captured in a very interesting and eyecatching manner. Great colors, composition and mood. Well done! --Slaunger (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
catched up the sign by --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, kaʁstn --Slaunger (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no problem :-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It is very hard to get such an image quality at night. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. --Avenue (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this image promoted per "5th day rule"? --V-wolf (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Image:Nelumno nucifera open flower - botanic garden adelaide.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2010 at 04:43:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Support yo encontré muy linda esta foto... merece ser una buena foto... --The.famefactory (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A better version is already featured. --99of9 (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: another version of the same picture is already featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- I think we can assume with some confidence that User:The.famefactory and the the anonymous editor who nominated the picture are the same person (190.248.177.127 is from Colombia). That is why I have moved his support vote to the begining and restored the FPX template. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case my oppose is not needed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunsetpayallar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2010 at 18:56:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by ozgurmulazimoglu - nominated by ozgurmulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, the other one is much better... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - As it says in the FPC guidelines: "beautiful does not always mean valuable". -- Onno Zweers (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Much better than the earlier version; only 5% of pixels are saturated in the red channel. I think that is acceptable. The bright halo around the silhouettes is almost gone. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely wallpaper. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noised -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but I agree with others, very beautiful but too noisy for FP. --Phyrexian (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morpho peleides 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2010 at 19:58:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Je me demande si une présentation horizontale ne serait pas meilleure. Tu as par ailleurs trois petites taches de poussière visibles en bas à gauche. Minuscules, mais visibles même à la taille de l'échantillon. Sinon, Bravo. Et c'est courageux de proposer ce genre de photos...--Jebulon (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- C'est la présentation réelle de la scène. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 00:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I don't like the black area right behind the insect, the detail is very nice otherwise. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background is too busy IMO Scewing (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support You can't always choose the background --Schnobby (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- While the subject is nice and sharp, the background and composition are not up to FP standars. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Et voilà pourquoi c'est courageux de proposer ce genre de photos...--Jebulon (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Resmin boyutları oldukça rahatsız edici. Biraz daha geniş olsaymış iyi olabilirmiş. Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Support great picture :P im support No anonymous votes, please -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, poor background. --Avenue (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the eye doesn't go to the background. It stays on the image. Nice image, nice detail. Stellarkid (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bellissima! I like the vertical composition. --Phyrexian (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image. --Karelj (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Łąka (Krynica-Zdrój).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2010 at 23:35:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by sfu (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something impressionist. I prefer Monet, but this one is very good.--Jebulon (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Rahatsız edici öğeler içeriyor. Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like to see some red flowers here, they might make it much more beautiful. Otherwise it is just a meadow. --Aktron (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this picture --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per George --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It does strongly remind me of impressionist painting. Lovely scene. --99of9 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amiga A1000 IMG 4275.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2010 at 10:51:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Amiga 1000 computer. On display at the Musée Bolo, EPFL, Lausanne.. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support another great one. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --McIntosh Natura (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Lambis millepeda 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2010 at 13:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lambis millepeda, Strombidae, Millipede Spider Conch; Length 13 cm; Originating from the Philippines; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Support -- Llez (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I support strongly. Among the views of this shell, I'm particularly fond of the colors of the third, at right.--Jebulon (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support another great one. please reconsider adjusting levels. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 16:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done as proposed. Thanks for the hint. --Llez (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Flawless --Slaunger (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cayambe (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --shizhao (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Reenactors in Austerlitz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2010 at 10:37:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry but looks a snapshot to me as the expressions of the 'soldiers' are uninteresting. The image quality isn't very good either. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a fan of the Napoleon's time history, I added a french caption. They are Grenadiere, maybe Regiment N°1 Kaiser Franz. I think that this photo is "not bad", but (as Alvesgaspar) it is not enough for FP, IMO (lack of dynamics...). --Jebulon (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the subjects are interesting and informative, but the background appears too inconsistent/distracting for FP quality. The dark hats show little contrast from the shady trees in the background. Also, per Alvesgaspar. - LeavXC (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding colors, outstanding composition. Maybe a bit of grain but that I don't think is crucial now. --Aktron (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Alvesgaspar--shizhao (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spiriferina rostrata Noir.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2010 at 19:05:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not flawless (blurry arcs, noise in dark interior), but very good. --Avenue (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Avenue.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hard job (8 pictures...), nice result, and high EV IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good light, colors and application of focus stacking. Visually appealing and makes the layman viewer interested in the subject. --Slaunger (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --shizhao (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:300° Diedamskopf Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2010 at 21:54:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great panorama and high ev. the stitching is not convincing (see gradients in the skies) and four different angled lens flares are really awkward. rule of thirds should be right on the couple sitting on the bench. group left from the antenna is rather distracting due to crop through their bodies. would support a fixed version. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I'm not fond of extreme panoramas because they don't offer a realistic picture of the subject. In this particular case, I also agree with Peter Weis. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish there were no flare, but still a great image!--Mbz1 (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Oldukça başarılı ve emek verilmiş bir çalışma olmasına rağmen teknik sorunlar nedeniyle olumlu olamıyorum. Ancak kesinlikle tebrik edilmesi gereken bir çalışma. Mulazimoglu (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mbz1. --Cayambe (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Excellent line of sight and DOF. Good overall quality, although the flare is problematic. I do not fancy the high geometric warp of the bench, where verticals are far from being vertical. I do appreciate that there are people in the foreground as it adds depth to the photo. --Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support See Mbz1 --Dietrich Krieger (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Barring stitch error discoveries. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 17:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the flare is problematic. Something about this photo feels too busy too. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 18:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Danke für die Nominierung. Die Linsenflecken sind extrem schwer zu entfernen, ich habe es probiert, aber leider ohne Erfolg. --Böhringer (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer Peter Weis and Alvesgaspar.--Jebulon (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flare --99of9 (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FieldMarine (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great view, but per others, the flares in the sky are problematic. LeavXC (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of flares. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cancelled vote as user already voted once in this nomination. --Slaunger (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh yes, sorry. My mistake--Jebulon (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Childhood of Mennonite in Southern Missouri.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2010 at 15:34:56 (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) 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I took this image without flash or other additional artificial lightning. This is a contre-jour shot. The faces are illuminated by reflected sunlight coming from the clothes and from the arms. I made this photograph with the Rule of thirds: the left girl got one column width, the right girl two column width. Therefore the dress of the left girl is cropped. The photograph gives information about the childhood of Mennonite girls. They live in self made clothes near to the nature without electricity, television and Internet. The image is made 2004 with Olympus OM-3 on Kodak reversal film and scanned by Nikon Coolscan V ED. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose żal fota do pupci taką to mi na papierze toaletowym wydrukujcie bede sie nią podcierać log in to vote. --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose the worst photo ever! I HATE IT ! some kids on a treee it's awful! log in to vote. --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Support excellent colors-tones (film quality).. Ggia (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
vorerst Neutral: Interessante Stimmung, gute Komposition, den Ansatz an die Drittel-Regel ist erkennbar und schön, nur qualitativ überzeugt es mich nicht (Artefakte, verpixelt oder irgendsowas, auch leichte Unschärfe (siehe vorallem Gesicht des rechten Mädchens)). Daher erst mal Enthaltung. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you speak english? --The Photographer (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat, but not really good. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Hoş bir resim ancak sağ alt köşe oldukça parlak görünüyor. Ayrıca bu resimde öğreticilik adın bir şey göremedim. Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol :-) But the difference to my comment is that the author know waht I wrote... But okay, I'm going to translate my comment for the others --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not lol for me. I think it is OK to write review comments in ones own native language, if, e.g., a user finds it hard to express himself in English. Mulazimoglu has several times been asked to give more thorough oppose reasons, but has expressed a difficulty in expressing a reason in English. I have given him the advice to use his native language then, as surely, a reviewer will be helpful with translation if needed. Using an autotranslator I understand some of the oppose reason as being due to the image being too bright, especially in the lower right corner. And then there is another point, which I do not not quite understand, but maybe somebody else can help? --Slaunger (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons is an international project and we welcome those who are not fluent in English to participate. The FPC guidelines explicitly encourage those without English language fluency to comment in their own language. Multilingual reviews encourage broader participation at FPC. I thank Mulazimoglu for his/her comments and I think they are helpful. I think the other comment relates to the educational value of the image. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not lol for me neither. I am happy enough to understand two or three other languages different of my native one, but it is very difficult. I would like to than Mulazimoglu too because his comments are very useful, and very understandable with an auto translator. I agree with him about the technical point in the right corner below. And I confirm: a turkish-french auto translation says that he is not convinced by the educative value of this picture.--Jebulon (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Many blown areas (sunlit areas on the dress and hair of the one on the left). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the warm colors (due to the use of film) gives you a "dream feeling".. the sunlit areas.. are not bad. specially in the left girl.. seems that they work creatively in the general composition.. The sunlit area of the hair of the right girl.. probably it is a little be not so nice.. Ggia (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Yes, the lighting is beautiful but that's it. I'm not fond of the composition (especially the girl seen from below) and would have given more space on top. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because the quality isn't bad in that it's sharp and not speckled, though you might've had your camera on the wrong lighting setting when taking it, can the lighting be fixed digitally? --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible to revise a scanned slide digitally, but it is not possible to undo blown areas. You can see, I made an update with revised lighting and better colors. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know whyt, but, I love it --The Photographer (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I made an update with better colors. Is the lighting o.k. or too dark? --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI'm sorry I don't see in this picture alone what can be featurable without explanations of the nominator, even the subject (no doubt about they are mennonite girls, for instance, but only because you say they are.)--Jebulon (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose，per Alvesgaspar--shizhao (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:USA 10187 Horseshoe Bend Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2010 at 21:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Lucag - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Second try. As before, I prefer the present FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do they have to be in competition with each other? We have a lot of FPs of the same subject (the moon, and Saturn, for instance), and this one is different from the other (all the shadows and light sources are different, the sky is overcast here). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wonderful! - LeavXC (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Everything looks ok, but the sky! Bu tür seçkin resmilerde resmin genelinde bir mükemmeliyet gerekir. Yine de tebrikler. Mulazimoglu (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sky is overcast, so that's why it's white. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there another word for "mükmemmeliyet"? The translation programs, and Google, have trouble with it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. It is mükemmeliyet. Means somethşng like being in the state of perfection.Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is much better. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good photo of a great place, but I agree with Alvesgaspar that this one is better. Jonathunder (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like both versions, but the colors in this one are very rich. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the old version has a better impression of height due to the shadows falling into the valley, the skies are not blown out and the water has this intense green. the impression we have here is very different (due to daytime and season). this image has more dynamic range and the colours are more convincing than in the old fp. again the best solution might be a middle course: green colour of the water, blue skies and dynamic range. perhaps such a picture will be created as well some day. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wonderful! And as the Whale said: Contrary to the valued pictures, the featured pictures can contain several pictures with the same subject. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support !!! –hover Fly | chat? 17:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would prefer a version not taken when overcast, but overall a good photo. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 18:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar--Jebulon (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, great color. Stellarkid (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor DOF and resolution, don't like the colors, nothing changed, this one too similar and much better (per Alvesgaspar) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Western Snowy Plover , Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus at Ocean Beach 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2010 at 19:10:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice.. seems much better from the previous version! Ggia (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ggia. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Ggia. --Avenue (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, pretty, and highly valuable IMO. Furthermore, even if my taste is not very interesting, I like it .--Jebulon (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Congrats.Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish I could have taken this photo. Kooritza (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Karelj (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. If the birds could have been commanded: Hey you, move a bit up and to the left the composition could ideally have been less messy, but it is not possible... --Slaunger (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! The birds are shown well in their environmental setting. LeavXC (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentGreat picture, but I guess that the birds are en:Sanderling and not en:Western Snowy Plover Merops (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those cannot be Sanderlings. The image was taken in November in California. According to article Sanderlings are wintering in South America, on the other hand en:Western Snowy Plovers live in California.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct! According to article "In the northern winter it has a nearly cosmopolitan distribution across the world's marine coasts". For example the first picture on this site was taken by me in December 2009 at the North Sea. Look at the birds plumage in both article, didn't you see the differents? Merops (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will try to get the third opinion, and will correct the description, if you are right.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus Trajan.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2010 at 21:54:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jebulon (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus, Roman Emperor Trajan (53-117)-- Jebulon (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no not for the canvas colour. but for nasty flash reflections and lacking level adjustment. any chance of a reshot? uploading a transparent canvas version would be very nice. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, i didn't use flash. Maybe could you have a quick look to the original file, in the description page ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - hmm usually opera's display of metadata works. seems to be some sort of daylight reflections then. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry I don't understand the word "hmm". Does it mean that you doubt I talk the truth ? If not, may I understand that you oppose because of daylight reflections over old and polished marble ? Well... Thanks for review. Let's wait for other opinions. Regards,--Jebulon (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "métadonnées" (metadata) of the file description page says "Flash: flash non déclenché, suppression du flash obligatoire" (no translation needed, IMO). I'm disappointed to notice that the expression of the result of your review was maybe not wise enough...regards,--Jebulon (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - hmm is an interjection meaning that one ponders about something (at least it is in german). in this case i was simply astonished by opera not displaying the correct metadata. after your comment i used the wikidisplay for metadata and adobe bridge to double check. and yes i do oppose because of those reflections. the wrinkles and pleats benefit from this, but the bottom of the statue does not. perhaps reshooting on a rainy day or using a reflector could help here. still my opinion has not changed - the reflections (the source does not matter in this context) and the levels is what prevents me from supporting. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - hmm hmm...--Jebulon (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background's a bit dark, distracts a bit, but the quality is good. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I don't think the background color is the best. The base is dark and with that background, when you are looking at Trajan's face, it gets confused into it. Did you choose brown because the base was already blue? It is a very dark blue. I tried blueish because the cloth on his shoulders were brown, also tried light brown, light yellow... None convinced me. The base has already, by itself, a nice color contrast (brown vs blue) but if you let the base be seen then the face losses attention. If, on the other hand you use some dark backgroundd to let the face be seen then the base suffers. A vertical gradient convince me better. Dark on top, lighter the bottom. You brown is fine although I liked better the face with a deep blue to white gradient. Grinatyou (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Bildiğim kadarıyla resimdeki hükümdarı tasvir eden nice güzel resim mevcut. Böyle olmasa bile arka plan rengi rahatsız edici. Açının ve kompozisyonun da yeterli iyilikte olduğunu düşünmüyorum. Saygılar.Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral background colour is problematic. Photo may be useful if this was changed. In the future, the use of a polarizing filter may help with reflections from daylight on objects. --nsaum75^¡שיחת! 18:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Be sure that I knew that the background would be controversial. But thanks for review.--Jebulon (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good background in look at full resolution (not thumb preview) --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good technical quality. Not too happy about the background color, although it is a bold choice! The subject itself: It does not really catch my eye. I have no constructive or good ideas how to make it more interesting to look at. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, it is not a helpful comment, IMO. A

Neutral vote, or an abstention should have been more appropriate. You say that you have not real opposing reason, but you oppose ? Because of your feeling that it is a boring subject (to be polite) ? The expression I have no constructive or good ideas how to make it more interesting to look at is very and unnecessary hurtful to me. Thank you, but I don't need your help for that, because it is interesting enough to me (and maybe to others here), despite your contemptuous words. Well, may I now oppose (for instance) every panorama here, because nothing in panoramas catch my eyes, and because I think (for instance) that so deformed pictures are an insult for every normal brain ? Until today, I didn't vote in this cases, but it will change maybe, using your current vote as a jurisprudence. --Jebulon (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Jebulon. I think you are overreacting or maybe it is just another one of those multilingual miscommunications? Do I find the photo "boring". Since you ask directly: "Yes". I did not want to write that explicitly as I found that would not be helpful. It is probably possible for the subject to be visualized in a manner, which would make it feature-worthy according to my preferences. I wish I could provide explicit directions as to what could be done in that respect. That is something, which I can sometimes do. In this case I have no specific idea. I would probably have to see the subject in real life to get some. That is what I tried to express in my review. In the future, please assume good faith and ask me for clarification on an explanation if you feel an image is being reviewed unfair by me. --Slaunger (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think you should oppose images you do not find feature-worthy, nomatter what the reason is for you not fancying them. If you are turned off by the geometric distorion in some panoramas, i think it is fair to oppose for that reason. I think it is a misunderstanding to abstain to vote from such nominations as a tacit oppose. Better make it explicit. The opposing reason can often provide feedback for the nomintor, which he may use in future work. That is how many "old" users here have improved over time. --Slaunger (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be absolutely clear about one thing. It is the photo I am opposing, not you. I think you are a great contributor, and I think I have mentioned that on more than one occasion on your talk page. --Slaunger (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do not panic and assume good faith. please do not drag this opposition down to a personal level - Slaunger critiqued your image not you as a person. speaking in terms of the guideline he simply does not see a wow-factor within your image. be reminded that telling other people how to vote and their comments being not helpful can be very and unnecessary hurtful to them as well. if other users vote with no strong arguments from your poi, it's not a call for a generalization of your votes on certain subjects. each fpc needs careful checking to return a verdict: this can be a process of critique close to the guideline or the expression of mere feelings and thinkings. you must not see my comment as a personal offense either - it is about improving the situation and finding a better solution. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only two months ago, this picture was featured with 11 support, 0 oppose, and 1 neutral. Would you please begin a delist procedure ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support They are shown on an exceptional subject and ... they look at the background. If the background is black is too black. If it is degraded, you are asked a black background. If you surrender then another contributor will suggest making it white. The backgrounds are subjective assessments. If there is no technical foul, then let's focus on the subject. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support @Jebulon assume good faith even you feel that there is no good faith. I.e. the comments "this image is no wow for me", "let the poor thing breath" etc etc are funny comments ;-).. Assume when somebody gives a comments "this image is no wow for me" that means that the general composition is not good enough aesthetically. When says about "a little thing that does not breath.." means that (s)he likes more space in the sides etc.. But IMO you have to ignore most of the comments because they limit your creativity.. In the creativity there are not rules saying things about noise, crop, wow factor (and excellent image can be minimal), composition rules, tilt (there are image ie [17] is completely tilt and is a famous image of Koudelka).. I.e. if this example of image (by Koudelka) will be an image from a user in commons.. there will be comments because of the tilt, may-be because of the grain (noise in film terminology) etc.. Ggia (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The statue we already featured stood out from the (neutral) background much better. Also I think the pose here is not particularly striking from this angle (but I'm not sure if there's any better angle). --99of9 (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - I withdraw my nomination--Jebulon (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MiG-15 Vinnitsa 2010 G3.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2010 at 16:56:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Monument to the Soviet pilots in Vinnitsa, Ukraine. Old Soviet jet fighter MiG-15.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not sure about this one. Fantastic quality and composition, but I'd like to see it from the front. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Wrong angle. shadow problem. etc. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Mulazimoglu. LeavXC (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good with a nice blue background like it is flying.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is lacking imo. Jujutacular ^talk 05:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very good angle, also, the sky is somewhat boring. Sorry, –hover Fly | chat? 17:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low cut, deep shadows. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary pic, nothing revolutionary. --Aktron (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:20101009 Fylakio detention center for immigrants refugees Thrace Evros Greece.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2010 at 19:29:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info This autumn there are several articles in mass media around Europe about the illegal immigration in Greece. i.e. this article Europe's gateway for illegal immigration or this documentary of the Norwegian TV about immigrants - refugees [18]. If you go to the 7:53 minutes of this video (it has English narration) you will see scenes from this detention center (the health conditions etc are bad in this detention center). On 21-Sep-2010 UNHCR reported that: "asylum situation in Greece is 'a humanitarian crisis'" [19]. Ggia (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for high ev and historic significance. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- Please check Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#FPC bot and abnomral support votes on the use of abnormal template votes. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info Actually, here an optional text has been specified using a correct template. I think the bot will accept that. --Slaunger (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Info -- Yes, I did it... Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, OK, I did not notice that, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment adding weak/strong/anything else is just an expression of personal feelings. i am totally aware of the fact that these votes count as a single vote, still they can help express one's thoughts. perhaps there should be a poll on how to get this into policy/guideline - resulting in either deleting the template or encouraging people to use them. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a refreshing new kind of subject and valuable. The technical quality is really good, and the stitch is very well made. The light and colors are good as well considering the overcast conditions. I have the problem though that I do not easily see the really interesting part of this photo - the imprisoned refugees. A huge fraction of the area of the photo is taken up by cut off and not very relevant elements for the scenary, such as masts with power cables, road side crash barriers. For me an FP should tell its story for the viewer without having to read about the background and inspect a small fraction of the photo for the people. It is not that I only want to see the imprisoned refugees. They should be seen in context with fence, barbed-wire, some building structures, etc. But here there is simply much too much of the surrounding context IMO. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion not relating to the nomination moved to here. --Slaunger (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Support But there are at least 2 dust spots on the left hand side. Could you please remove them?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for the comment.. dust spots has been removed and the image is updated. Ggia (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As Slaunger. Good quality and interesting but not special or beautiful enough for rechinh FP status. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree in principle with Slaunger. I'm not happy with the composition. Apart from the missing wow-factor there are imo some other problems. The crop on some parts (see annotations) is not good and the trucks are disturbing and obscure the building. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - high educational value overcomes some of the issues with obscured view, particularly those that probably can't be helped. I think a careful recrop may improve it enough for me to support, particularly the distracting elements toward the edges. Jonathunder (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Olumsuz düşünen arkadaşlar sanırım haklılar. Bu resim dramatik ancak kompzisyon ve kalite olarak biraz hafif kalıyor. Belki yakından tutuklular çekilseymiş ilginç olurmuş. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think there is too much contrast. --Aktron (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peter Weis -- Onno Zweers (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tooltips on photo are true. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brandbil i Hofors.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2010 at 11:10:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. -- V-wolf (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- V-wolf (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I promoted it at QIC because it's a nice picture and I like it very much, but I think for a FP ISO 500 is too high (background is very noisy)... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I withdraw my nomination --V-wolf (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morcote Ticino.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 17:43:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by murdockcrc - uploaded by murdockcrc - nominated by murdockcrc -- Murdockcrc (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Murdockcrc (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Bad quality. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please elaborate? --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well. The image is not clear. The island is just in the center. Colors are not that good. And a lot i cant tell in English. It looks like a nice place though. Mulazimoglu (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- Great view, magnificent location, view point well chosen. I would support with a better image quality (sharpness, colors), and if it would be a wider panorama showing the edges of the water (where does that bridge lead to?). -- Onno Zweers (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your input. Composition-wise, there is nothing much to be done. As you can see, there's a forest to the right, so increasing the perspective in that direction will not show anything but trees. To the left, there is a hotel, so no chance of seeing more of the water. As far as colors and sharpness go, there's nothing more I can do about them... --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the setting is very interesting and seems worthy to be featured. contrasts, sharpness, focus, colours - pretty much anything could be better. a great shot with insufficient technical quality to be featured by me. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose plus the grass looks like a frame. Either more in or out. Tanakashi (talk)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vilnius Pilies street.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 14:16:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by sfu (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too bad though that the street is in shadow. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sokak aydınlık değil. Açı kötü. Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a street in shadow, with bad crops left and below, I don't find something really featurable here, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose plus low cut Tanakashi (talk)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ocean beach at low tide against the sun.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2010 at 12:45:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The image was not practically post processed. It was taken against the sun, and the colors came from the settings I used.
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~per comment of Grinatyou~~.. Mbz1 you have much better images than this one. Ggia (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was too lazy to write comments and I followed the comments of Grinatyou.. Here are my comments: The image is too dark for me, has unnatural colors (probably during the settings of the camera and the contra-light conditions), no details in the bird (only silhouette). The form of the image (actually only form we see here) does not convince me (I don't find the composition well-balanced). Images like that (that actually we see only form / shadows) are better in black & white. This image lacks of color and a black & white version will be more interesting.. with dark parts, white parts, middle gray tones etc. But since the contrast is too high I don't know if this image succeed in b&w (because it misses middle tones - this is usually a problems of digital sensors that have low dynamic range). As I mentioned above Mbz1 has much better images than this one. Ggia (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well everybody could come here and say: "I see technical problems, composition problems, lack of value" without saying what the problems are. And I am not looking forward for clarification of that review because according to the user, if he "explains them in detail it would be abusive". I do have much better images than this one, but it is not a reason to oppose this one I guess. It's OK, no worries

--Mbz1 (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose –hover Fly | chat? 17:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Resimdeki kuş cinsini ayırt edebilmek için daha yakından çekilmiş olması şart. Bu durumda öğreticilik faktörü az. Siyah beyaz olması da artistik açı dışında resme bir özellik katmamış. Bence seçkin olması için zorlanmaması gereken alelade bir resim. Ancak yine de hoş. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not black and white picture! It is only photographed against the sun. O siyah beyaz bir resim değil! Sadece güneşe karşı fotoğraflandı olduğunu.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, very good quality, and I'm sure it would do well in any photo contest, but I don't see much educational value here. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is added to 4 categories! Of course there's a value. Even, if it was an image of ocean waves only, there would have been a value. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And three more by me, but...--Jebulon (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good use of composition technique. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 18:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality, fine image. Stellarkid (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I usually don't like b/w images and find them very useless, but this one is superb! Very nice composition, good quality. Not strong support because the educational value is really a bit low, but not 100% not there (e.g. Grayscale, Black-and-white, Waves, Ocean Beach, San Francisco, California, ...) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Carschten. And b/w in this case is perfect problem solving with very harsh lighting. Nice result. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm astonished to see the success of Mbz1 in this photo. I'm used to lousy images when taking them against the sun, but this one is amazing. Fantastic work. Kooritza (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thought a while about this one. Personally, I perhaps do not see as much value in it as many others, but the visualization of the sea is really intriguing. The sea almost looks like thick, black oil. Very interesting and quite dramatic to look at. I can almost hear the waves breaking. --Slaunger (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I would like to support, but "Commons" is not (only) a photography contest. This one is absolutely aesthetically wonderful, but, as say the guidelines "Be aware that beautiful does not means always valuable". It is my opinion that value lacks here.--Jebulon (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The bird on this image is really easy to ID. I did not know what bird it was because I am not a birder, so I asked Walt, and he made a correct ID right away. This image has a value--Mbz1 (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per kaʁstn excepted the point that I find B/W images often only useless, not very useless... Ah, it could be used educationally in teaching compositional photographic ideas and rules, so saying ithis image has no educational value is not true for me. Grand-Duc (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad. --Karelj (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks EV. "Beautiful does not always mean valuable". Many spots seem underexposed, and its EV could be stronger in color rather than monochrome or black and white. - LeavXC (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not black and white image. The colors came from settings and mostly because it was taken against the sun. The image was practically not post processed.--03:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

- I don't have any complaints with necessary post-processing (it's a major part of digital photography). However, the picture contains little or no color (hence it is a monochrome or black-and-white photo). Perhaps you used the "Monochrome" Picture Style setting on your Rebel XTi? LeavXC (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I used no special settings at all.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bland colours. --99of9 (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful waves and a bird, even at contre-jour, is not enough to convince me to feature this one in "Commons". I change my "neutral" to an "oppose".--Jebulon (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:STS-1 Launch.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2010 at 10:48:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by TucsonDavid - nominated by User:TucsonDavid -- TucsonDavid (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator -- TucsonDavid (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy and only 1024x863 -- Llez (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I think "it is too samll" was intended to be "it is too small". --High Contrast (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course... Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't intended to be small I just thought it was a really great picture, because the space shuttle represents a lot. Like the dreams of almost every little kid to be an astronaut for instance.TucsonDavid (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: File is a DUPLICATE of File:Space Shuttle Columbia launching.jpg. みんな空の下 (トーク) 07:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skylark 2, Lake District, England - June 2009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2010 at 17:28:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trachemys (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support mmyyam it eats it with "salad"... --Elekhh (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess the background is a bit dull, but it's very high quality and the insect meal makes it interesting. --99of9 (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LeavXC (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quistnix (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did you see this version ? Could be a FP too, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is a better for me. --Trachemys (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support oh! Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 22:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:U20-WorldCup2007-Okotie-Onka edit2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2010 at 05:00:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nwiebe - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, blown, and the spectators behind are blown. Sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VS (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This picture has everything to be featured. Pls notice that it is very hard to take similar pictures of action in this quality. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per High Fin. Jujutacular ^talk 05:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good action shot. Captures a pivotal moment clearly. Noise and blown bits are minor issues in comparison (although muting them a bit might be nice). --Avenue (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support everyone who complains about the blown people in the back, should also state how to make it better --AngMoKio (座谈) 18:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Picture ist allready featured. Look! File:U20-WorldCup2007-Okotie-Onka.JPG --Simonizer (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

--Mbz1 (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination As of the above. Thank you, --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palaeopropithecus ingens.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2010 at 22:38:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Smokeybjb - uploaded by Smokeybjb - nominated by Totodu74 -- Totodu74 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Totodu74 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Citron (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support in spite of the bottom's tight crop--Mbz1 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks promising in preview size, but not it in higher resolution. It lacks a sense of depth, there are some artificial looking (yeah, I know it is a reconstruction) transitions in the image, like in between the hand and the tree, where the texture of the tree is completely smoothed out as, whereas the arm and hand have much more detailed texture yet being at the same depth in the image. --Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but it looks to artificial to me (especially the hand). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger. Is it a scientific reason for the orange eyes, or is it only the choice of the artist ? It is very disturbing IMO because it catches the attention too much.--Jebulon (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per opposers on top. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wertuose (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for tight crop bottom left and distracting eyes. I also wonder why the right elbow is narrower than the arm above and below it, but the left elbow is not. --Avenue (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The PEFO Tepees.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2010 at 00:05:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Finetooth - uploaded by Finetooth - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elekhh (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors --Schnobby (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --VS (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FieldMarine (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite echo along ridgeline. Lovely colours and forms. --Avenue (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 17:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbdortmund (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating landscape -- Onno Zweers (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spirobranchus giganteus (Christmastree Worm - yellow variation).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2010 at 15:38:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs categorization to a suitable taxo-level. --Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Thank you. Great! --Slaunger (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ooooh ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful, but the CA/fringing at upper right is too strong for me. --Avenue (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 17:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Spider November 2010-6.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 23:58:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A Garden Spider waiting for prey. Notice the signal thread atached to its leg (and to the web). Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wonderful detail, but the composition seems too central to me. Cropping some of the blackness on the right, e.g. to make the lower right corner meet the extended signal thread diagonal, would help it I think. --Avenue (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 01:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Detailed and interesting, but the composition is too centered (needs use of "rule of thirds"). Also, the flash seems to cast quite harsh shadows, especially off of the top leaf, adding to a distracting background. Sorry. - LeavXC (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Bence detaylı değil. Ayrıca bazı teknik hatalar mevcut. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- Google translation:"I think it is not detailed. Also present some technical errors". Question - Where is the detail missing and what technical errors are you refering to? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The details of the animal is not so good. Also the leaf is not clear. And the animal is just in the center. The picture totaly has no wow factor. Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Focus is correct, lighting of the subject is excellent. This is a FP. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo. With a bit more strong crop could be outstanding composition with clear diagonal line. IMO, approximately 240 - 250 px at right crop needed. However, i like this photo "as is" too --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition seems a bit messy to me. In particular the upper leaf edge and shadow. --99of9 (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice monster but dark Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hard dark shadow from flash kills it for me. --Niabot (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the criticism about the leaf edge and shadows, and drop this nom (although it might still have a fair chance of promotion). An improved version will be nominated above -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malards in Golden Gate Park.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2010 at 15:37:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This picture is technically poor to be featured. Also no composition at all. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad lightning. The sunlight was too straight and hard. Due to that it seems that the camera was overwhelmed with this situation, too... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alas, per opposers above, sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

--Mbz1 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Helkivad ööpilved Kuresoo kohal.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2010 at 09:49:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Martin Koitmäe - uploaded by Martin Koitmäe - nominated by WikedKentaur -- WikedKentaur (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WikedKentaur (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe nice at first view, but the sky is pixellated, the time of exposure makes a motion blur to the stars and the clouds unsharp, the water is noisy. Not sure about the value (but it is subjective). Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Still I like it--Llorenzi (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image is of a rare not well understood night w:Noctilucent clouds. It has a great EV. The quality is OK for a night shot.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the stars are blurred - and not just from the Earth's motion, because they appear in a small crescent shape. This could be caused by 1. bumping the setup or 2. leaving the lens' IS system on. Really too bad, I know noctilucent clouds don't come along to often. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The rarity of the subject and its great mood mitigates the aforementioned quality issues in this nomination IMO. As I understand this photo is actually a remarkable clear illustration of Noctilucent clouds. --Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Slaunger. Jacopo Werther (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Slaunger. I've seen noctilucent clouds only once in my life and that was nothing compared to this. -- Onno Zweers (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Slaunger. --Avenue (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Value? Quality? Interesting though. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extremely valuable! I've never even seen this kind of cloud before. --99of9 (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral something is wrong but I don't know now. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- I'm in love with this photo. The sky, the clouds, the stars and the misty forest - it all makes a unique atmosphere. I have only one question - could anybody rotate it about 0,8 dergees counter-clockwise? Von.grzanka (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Leon hot air balloon festival 2010.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2010 at 19:17:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are a lot of dust spots. Please remove them. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support That huge spongebob balloon makes me smile. The ways its feet barely touches the surface of the water. Great composition, eyecatching and with a lot of interesting details in the various balloons. Not too overwhelmed by the technical quality, but overcompensated by especially the composition. --Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slaunger, well, early morning light, backlit subject, hazy morning, so I did the best I could ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is a picture of the foreground balloon free ? Is it not a derivative object, then picture, of a copyrighted comics (and animation) character ? Only a question.--Jebulon (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great picture in every way, but can't be a free image with such a prominently shown copyrighted character. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine picture, I do not see any copyright problems, it's present life. --Kürschner (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting an funny. Featurable IMO. According to the mexican law, it seems to be free. Maybe the {FoP-Mexico} template in the file page would help ?--Jebulon (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the template. Still some dust spots.--Jebulon (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Çok sevimli ama çekincelerim var...Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though the sky might be too bright. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, great work -- Quistnix (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Skradin Kroatien 04.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2010 at 21:24:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info typical village picture, taken in Skardin, Croatia
Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I like the mood and atmosphere a lot, and the technical quality is good, but I find the composition too busy for my taste. --Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sağ ve soldaki kanalık bölgeler çok fazla...Çok da ilginç değil. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- This is a useless assessment in my opinion. Better support or oppose with no comments. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abbacy and lighthouse of Saint-Mathieu.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2010 at 14:22:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llorenzi - uploaded by Llorenzi - nominated by Llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting composition (the cross against the white lighthouse is a good idea, imho), enhances the contrast between the derelict abbacy and the more recent and still maintained lighthouse(s ?). Adequate quality and lighting (maybe on the soft side, but OK). Still, the perspective distortion bothers me, especially the leaning church on the right. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I enhanced a bit the contrast --Llorenzi (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- May be a better and better image if more worked on it. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For example?--Llorenzi (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ interesting, composition perhaps too central. Might be better with the white building at far left cropped away. --Avenue (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I eliminate the lighthouse on the left... Do you think is more interesting now?--Llorenzi (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Compositionally it is there for me. However the perspective distortion on the church is now more glaring. That shouldn't be hard to correct, though. --Avenue (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately I'm not so good in image processing... Maybe someone can do that for me?--Llorenzi (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I tried something for you. If you dislike, or find it bad done, please feel free to revert to the previous version. No worries in this case !--Jebulon (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks a lot!--Llorenzi (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I felt the crop was a bit tight, left and especially below, so I've loosened it a bit. Feel free to revert. --Avenue (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support either of the prespective corrected versions. --Avenue (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support With Avenue's work.--Jebulon (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting things are one over the other, over the other. Move to separate. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition does not convince me + white balance should be edited a bit - I mean moved slighly to orange/red side. Also the sky is not very clear (grain). --Aktron (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Callionymus lyra.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2010 at 20:22:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Hans Hillewaert - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too bad he left, I'm going to miss pictures like these. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAlanscottwalker (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some overexposed areas, probably something wrong in masking, please see annotations.--Jebulon (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Çekincelerim var. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Jebulon, blown areas. Had it not been a studio shot, it would have been acceptable for me. --Slaunger (talk)
Oppose Also the borders are inconsistent. --99of9 (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Do we have cropout days? The cropout is done well, but overall expression suffers drastically. --Niabot (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Faune au chevreau Faun with kid Lepautre Louvre M.R.1808.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2010 at 15:23:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me - Sculpture by Pierre Lepautre (1660-1744) -- Jebulon (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Second try, after a previous nomination of a mistaken version, sorry again. More infos on the file description page-- Jebulon (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FieldMarine (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --shizhao (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Quistnix (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad/unsharp cropout, bleeding of colors at the edges, that missing explanation (missing background). Overall not very sharp / blurry. I expect more from a featured picture. --Niabot (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you miss explanations, please go read the file description page. I'm sorry the crop out is nor bad neither unsharp. Maybe you think so, but it is not.--Jebulon (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is. The more disturbing fact is the backlight (light that comes from a source that isn't visible anymore). This gives the feeling of a bad cutout. You can't change the lighting conditions. I know that. But even though it isn't such an great image for me. It doesn't have to be perfect, but i missing the "wow" effect and a plain black background is also mostly not appealing. --Niabot (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Masking problems. I'm still not sure if I'd support a fixed version because IMO it would look better if taken from a higher viewpoint. --99of9 (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Higher viewpoint: I agree. As you may see, the view is horizontal, because of the will of the sculptor. Like you, in my opinion the sculpture composition is not perfect, but it is not my fault... The last time I came to the Louvre with my keys for opening the display cabinets (because of the unacceptable reflections of glasses), they didn't accept me inside. Next time I will try to come in with my personal scaffold, but I'm not sure of the success neither... --Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose levels, noise, sharpness need to be fixed. thanks for the black background. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Vangendthallen-binnen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2010 at 16:20:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hallen van Stork, former train and ship engine factory in Amsterdam

Info created by Apus apus - uploaded by Apus apus - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This picture ended 3th in the Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest in which 12.500 picture of dutch rijksmonuments contested. The picture ended this high because of questions, like how can a plant grow here? what was this hall used for with all that graffity, or how long is it in it's current use?, and with that the story it tells. Sorry for my english, if anything is unclair please ask. Basvb (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sadece ilginç ancak seçkin resim özelliklerine sahip değil. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what google translate says, but you mean that there is not really a subject in the picture? The subject is the nl:Hallen van Stork (a part of a former train and ship engine factory in Amsterdam). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean something like interesting but dont have criters of a featured picture. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is a fun picture with the plant growing, but I also find it confusing. It is as if the photo has several different objectives. To show a plant growing indoors, to show an exhibition and a building inside. This is too much to try and do in one photo IMO. Moreover, the image quality is not on par with what is normally promoted. For instance noise and colors are not too good. --Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other opponents.--Jebulon (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Somewhat tilted, IMO, but I love the picture otherwise. –hover Fly | chat? 17:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magistral composition. Art showing art being shown. light can be better. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition - totally nonconformistic :-D That's a good value not common for most pictures here on WMC. --Aktron (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it! --Kirua (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it, but agree with Slaunger. --Avenue (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very serious chromatic aberrations on the upper beams. --99of9 (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:urinals.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2010 at 16:20:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

You are not alone! The photo shows a rather long row if urinals in a toilet. It is not a photomontage. The photo shows a school toilet in Germany.

YOU ARE NOT ALONE! This photo shows an almost endless row of urinals. It is not a photomontage! The picture shows a real school toilet in Germany.

Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Norbert Nagel, Mörfelden-Walldorf, Germany -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting subject and composition (repetitive patterns are great). alas the quality in terms of sharpness, noise, focus and artifacts could be improved. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 16:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per PeterWeis Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, composition isn't featured (e.g. crop at the right), there distortions and the quality is poor (for this see Peter) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it... brings back memories!!!! Good diagonal composition, rythm, etc. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think that this really has any educational value. Thomas888b (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, idea and composition, but dissapointing smartphone technical quality and non-optimal crop. I suggest redoing it using a DSLR on a tripod and then avoid cropped toilets and try to have find a shooting position where the verticals are kept as vertical as possible. --Slaunger (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose non-optimal crop, general composition.. this kind of subjects where actually there is a game of form-shapes (and there is not much color) it should be in black & white IMO. Ggia (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other opponents, even if the idea is funny. A new try should be interesting.--Jebulon (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it --The.famefactory (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Karelj (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I love the idea, but the crop is not ideal. Is it possible to try again? Jonathunder (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would love to support. but the white balance is totally off. Sorry, –hover Fly | chat? 17:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Faune au chevreau Lepautre Louvre M.R.1808.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2010 at 00:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me Sculpture by Pierre Lepautre (†1744)- Jebulon (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a black and solid background. Please see file description page for more informations about this sculpture. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There appears to be black paintbrush strokes in the background (the brush strokes are blacker than the original background) LeavXC (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per LeavXC - a simple level adjustment could fix this. a question on personal interest: jebulon can you see all the circles on the monitor adjustment page? if not - what kind of monitor/calibration do you use? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you are right. I have to rework. I withdraw my nomination--Jebulon (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]