Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2009

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

File:BrockenSnowedTreesInSun.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 10:38:25

Info White balance missing, noisy, unsharp. (Original nomination)
Delist —kallerna™ 10:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Yann (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not sharp. Maedin\^talk 12:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as per others. -- H005 20:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /JovanCormac 17:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GeysirEruptionNear.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 10:36:44

Info Low quality, noisy, unsharp, overburnt parts. Bad crop. (Original nomination)
Delist —kallerna™ 10:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As per nom. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /JovanCormac 17:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GothafossWinter.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 10:41:38

Info White balance missing, noisy, unsharp (Original nomination)
Delist —kallerna™ 10:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Yann (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I agree. -- H005 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Hi, I uploaded a new version of this image with corrected colors. I don't know what I am supposed to do now here. The original image, which was voted on until this post is here. Anyway, I think that no one would mind, if this image, corrected or not, would be deleted from FP.--Tired time (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /JovanCormac 17:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IceBlockNearJoekullsarlon.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 10:40:18

Info Unsharp, partly overburnt. (Original nomination)
Delist —kallerna™ 10:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nonetheless the wow is there, that mitigates for the technical imperfection. -- H005 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As H005. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As H005 said the wow is still there. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very nice and very rare, WOW --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For above. Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Very bad quality, seems like the ice is cropped from another picture and put on the top of bad quality beach background--Tired time (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /JovanCormac 17:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jordens inre.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2009 at 07:48:57

Info Reason to delist: Small resolution (800x833), unsuitable file format (JPEG), replaced by SVG, underwhelming in general.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 14:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I agree. -- H005 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /JovanCormac 17:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julia set (highres 01).jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2009 at 07:57:25

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Totally underwhelming, relatively low resolution fractal that pales in comparison with what anyone can create in seconds using modern fractal software (see [1] or [2] for examples).
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 14:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beautiful, good resolution, different fractal set than current FPC candidate, no reason to delist. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Tony Wills. Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tony Wills --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others -- TonyBallioni (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator--Tired time (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /JovanCormac 17:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leirhnjukur.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 10:42:56

Info Very unsharp, noisy (Original nomination)
Delist —kallerna™ 10:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but what a scene! Anonymous votes are not allowed. -- JovanCormac 17:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Obviously, per nom. Lycaon (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wow is there for me, it is not something that can easily be retaken. It seems like someone captured a very special moment the best way he / she could. --Korall (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The author's name is Andreas, so I guess he's a he :) Airwolf (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if that's not wowish enough, I don't know, what is. Airwolf (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Airwolf --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For Airwolf. Jacopo Werther (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /JovanCormac 17:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albert Memorial, London - May 2008.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 12:22:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by David Iliff, nominated by Maedin
Support— Very good in detail. Maedin\^talk 12:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed. David delivers. -- JovanCormac 12:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - on thumbnail didn't look like anything special but in full version you can see the great quality.--Avala (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 16:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing shot!! Rastrojo _(D•ES) 19:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The high resolution and quality deserves praise, however, the composition and atmosphere of the picture are not exceptional. --S23678 (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 17:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gypsum var. selenite from Andamooka Ranges - Lake Torrens area, South Australia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2009 at 06:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by JovanCormac
Info Another beautiful and detailed mineral photo.
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 06:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support— Maedin\^talk 11:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 17:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Kanalnetz Wiesbaden 2009-09-12 04 pregamma 1 reinhard02 key 0.18 phi 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 12:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by paddy, nominated by Yann (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator Yann (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose thumbnail looks nice but in full version you can see a lot of quality problems especially in darker areas. --Avala (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great shot, but unfortunately the technical quality IMO is not sufficient for FP. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 16:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The picture was very difficult to make. I could not see the spirit level, did not even see the controls of my camera without the use of my fire lighter and the three HDRI images had an extremely long duration of exposure. Also it was the first time ever to visit the sewer publicly without application to the operating company and supposedly will be until next year. Also I gained access to the point where I took the picture because the security personal was friendly enough to let me step behind a restriction. I do not know if it was wise of me to upload the maximum size of this image. Also I tried to avoid postprocessing the picture (what I have done you can figure with help of the filename and the programme qtpfsgui). Not all of these factors make the picture better maybe only rarer but maybe you take one or the other point into consideration. --Paddy (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, because a good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph Airwolf (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paddy (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technical quality is not bad at all, really only minor and unimportant flaws that do not prevent the wow! -- H005 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the area around the light it is pixeley (sorry I don't know the technical terms) in the full version. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find it OK! Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF - Burned highlights Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support For Airwolf. Jacopo Werther (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support like Airwolf says.--Stanzilla (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Airwolf. Wpedzich (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - blown hilights. Great composition but the technical problems are a deal breaker for me. Cacophony (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Problems with quality. —kallerna™ 09:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After several days of deliberation, I have decided to oppose this one. While the image is very pretty and the composition is great, the technical problems are there and are significant, the grainy structure surrounding the blown highlights being especially unpleasant. The shot, given the particular situation (extremely low light) was challenging indeed, but that doesn't make the scenery a difficult subject in general: With strong lighting gear, it should be no problem to retake the picture with a shorter exposure time and a more balanced dynamic range, eliminating the sharpness problems, the image noise and the overexposure around the lamp. -- JovanCormac 06:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I share Jovan's thoughts --S23678 (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 17:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:La nascita di Venere (Botticelli).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 22:33:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sandro Botticelli - uploaded by Mvuijlst - nominated by Manuelt15 -- Manuelt15 (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Manuelt15 (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. -- JovanCormac 06:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --Umnik (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry. Color balance is definitely incorrect. Background (sky) and even skin are green. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colours not correct --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 17:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pyrite from Ampliación a Victoria Mine, Navajún, La Rioja, Spain 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2009 at 06:25:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by JovanCormac
Info Since we seem to be getting nowhere with fast-track promotion, we'll probably have to do it manually after all. This is a beautiful, amazingly sharp photo of a pyrite.
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 06:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but false color for the pyrite crystals. Pyrite is more gold colored! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what is it? And why is the grey background still grey? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. I know you're a chemist, but I have a small mineral collection and one of my pyrite crystals looks exactly like the one in the picture. See also this photo, this one and this one for other photos of pyrite that isn't gold colored. -- JovanCormac 07:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read this: pyrite: color: pale brass yellow, dull gold. All my FeS2 pyrite samples (8x various) are gold colored. I can't believe the color from the nominated picture. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the scale of this (not sure whether image is cropped, or scaled so can't work it out from lens etc). Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't tell you as I didn't take the picture, but the pyrite I have (which looks similar) is about 10 cm tall. -- JovanCormac 11:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is about the size of this one too. Worth about $AUD400. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if colours are real or not, I like the picture. --DPC (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mindat has plenty of silver pyrite specimens too. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's right, that pyrite can have different colours and this one is pale gold coloured. But imo there is not enough contrast between the object and the backround. I think the arrangement could be much better with a black backround and indirect light. -- Ra'ike T C 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fools gold doesn't always have to be gold... TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 17:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:BMP-1 Zlot Darłowo 2009.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2009 at 21:36:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Łukasz Golowanow -- Airwolf (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something about the composition of this picture (and especially the facial expressions of the people in it) is really, really special. Quality is OK for an action shot. -- JovanCormac 07:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great to see something not from the US military. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 22:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llorenzi (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Kosiarz-PL 12:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jamison Valley, Blue Mountains, Australia - Nov 2008.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 17:09:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Diliff - nominated by JovanCormac
Info One more shot by the master. I think the picture speaks for itself in its calm beauty.
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 17:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support We should have a rubber-stamp rule for this combination ;-). --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 17:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is stunning. AlexAH (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, is the white balance not slightly off? --Aqwis (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC
Support (can't see a problem with white balance btw) -- H005 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! Per AlexAH --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO the composition could be much better (there should be more stuff on bottom). —kallerna™ 10:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Kallerna and also background foggy, not sharp. --Karel (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit more color saturation would have been more pleasant. --S23678 (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Don't see a white balance problem and I think the composition is fine. Maedin\^talk 06:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mortimer Bay 1900.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2009 at 11:09:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geocode and proper category migh help improve the value of the image. Is it dusk or dawn?--Korall (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dusk, that stuff was coming, sorry. It will be there in about 5 minutes. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazingly beautiful. Location or whether it's dusk or dawn doesn't matter at all here IMO. It is obvious we don't Featured this one for its value, but for its beauty. -- JovanCormac 19:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vprisivko (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. ■ MMXX^talk 05:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "This media file is uncategorized." —kallerna™ 09:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support wow! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support fantastic! -- Ra'ike T C 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cause of beauty of course, but i still think its important to put media files in categories.--Korall
Neutral Not enough to oppose, but to me, there's a lack of details for a FP. I'll give a second thought later. --S23678 (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena

File:Salzburg panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 17:04:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Diliff - nominated by JovanCormac
Info After delisting this and this, it's time we feature a picture that does this beautiful city justice. This is Salzburg as I know it.
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 17:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know Salzburg yet, but it seems it's worth a trip :-). --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 17:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really recommend it! IMO Salzburg is more beautiful than even Vienna. Also, your mother tongue being German, you probably don't live too far from it - what are you waiting for? -- JovanCormac
Oppose, dull light ~~and low resolution for a panorama of four pictures, sorry~~. --Aqwis (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This attitude of judging images on what they could be instead of what they are seems a bit silly to me. Why don't you also oppose it because it wasn't taken with a 50 megapixel medium format camera? :-P This was taken 5 years ago with a 6 megapixel camera. Yes it is lower resolution than it could be, but until a better image comes along that is everything this is plus extra resolution, judge it on its merits. Diliff (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree 100% here. Aquis' comment is pure nonsense. Resolution is average for a FP, and image quality is next to perfect, easily besting 90% of all Featured panoramas. Did you know that there were actually people opposed to or neutral to delisting this picture of Salzburg, which has 1/3 of the candidate's resolution and terrible image quality compared to it? I try not to think too much about those "injustices", because if I do they always make me mad... -- JovanCormac 06:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per Maedin's comment about overlap I have retracted that part of my oppose. --Aqwis (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aqwis, IMO you were right, when you complained about the resolution of the panorama. A single image of 6 megapixels camera gives resolution of 3000 x 2000. Here we have four images panorama with a resolution, which is lower than a resolution of a single image. A strange overlap, isn't it :) Of course the resolution is within the rules of FPC, yet your oppose reason was still a legitimate one. On the other hand claiming that image should be promoted because there's no better one now availabale on the subject is a silly reason for promoting an image. The reaction of the user on the oppose votes, including retaliating to me in absolutely different place, seems inappropriate. I do not agree that this image is "easily besting 90% of all Featured panoramas". diliff is taking breathtaking panoramas, one of the best, maybe the best panoramas on Commons, but the nominated image is simply not one of them, and it is not the end of the world :).--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice image but not stunning.--Avala (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Agwis. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the lighting is fine, and of course the resolution is, too. Besides, we have no idea how much overlap there may have been in those 4 images. Maedin\^talk 06:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, normal quality image. --Karel (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see the special thing that would qualify this as an exceptional picture, sorry --S23678 (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 09:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:William Holman Hunt - The Scapegoat.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2009 at 02:37:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Holman Hunt (1827—1910) - uploaded and nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting picture. -- JovanCormac 06:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Einstein2 (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, on a thumbnail it looks like a photo. Airwolf (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great quality. --Aqwis (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very interesting indeed. Tiptoety ^talk 21:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Volubilis - ruins jm.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2009 at 12:43:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ludmiła Pilecka - uploaded by Lestath - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness isn't perfect, and it looks like the color balance is off, too (yellow!). -- JovanCormac 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I guess we need a discussion about sharpness standards, as some people put the bar very high recently. -- MJJR (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting object. I didn't know that storks (?) build nests in Morocco. Unfortunately technical quality is not up to FP standards IMO. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality, composition. --S23678 (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

file:SubothVenise.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2009 at 09:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Very Hungry God" from Suboth Gupta. Palazzo Grassi, Venice may 2007

Info created by Didier Descouens - uploaded by archaeodontosaurus - nominated by archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, the gondolier should be imho more on the right side of the image. His head "collides" with the sculpture. --Andreas 06 (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too dark, tilted to the right, cluttered composition. --Yerpo (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject should be presented through a more developped composition. --S23678 (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pisa tower05.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2009 at 15:23:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bartek Ptaszyński - uploaded by Bartek Ptaszyński - nominated by Bartek Ptaszyński -- BartekPtaszyński (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- BartekPtaszyński (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the picture tilted to the right-hand side or is it just my impression? Translation for the nominator: Zdjęcie przechylone na prawo czy tylko mi się wydaje? Airwolf (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know it's a Leading Town, so it should be titled to the right-hand side. BartekPtaszyński (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Powiedz to po polsku, co? Bo nie wiem, co masz na myśli, pisząc Leading Town. Airwolf (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry miałem na myśli Leaning Tower;). Chodzi mi o to, że jeśli jest to krzywa wieża to chyba normalne,że jest przechylona w prawo, zwłaszcza jeśli próbuje zrobić zdjęcie w pełni oddające "właściwości" wieży. Przynajmniej tak mi się wydaje. Pozdrawiam BartekPtaszyński (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tak, gdyby to było zdjęcie całej wieży, wtedy można by powiedzieć, że pokazujesz, jak jest przechylona. Ale na tym zdjęciu przechył ma się nijak do rzeczywistego przechyłu. Airwolf (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Severe JPEG artifacts, visible in the blue sky surrounding the top of the tower. -- JovanCormac 06:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues, and construction equipment --S23678 (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gandhi spinning.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 11:08:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by an unknown photographer - uploaded by Yann - nominated by JovanCormac
Info An engaging portrait showing Gandhi in one of his iconic poses: Using a spinning wheel to make yarn. Despite the image's relatively low quality (which is easily explained by the lack of good photographic equipment available during the 1920s in the Indian countryside), this is probably the best portrait of Gandhi we have, and an important historical and political document.
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. ;o) Yann (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't know why should I support. Poor quality. Maybe VI? —kallerna™ 14:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is a huge counter-argument for me. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 21:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO some credit should be given for the old and unique images.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am also thinking VI but not FP, the quality is really bad. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It surprises me that so many people oppose this based on quality when it's such a historic image. When File:Waldenburg1945edit.jpg was promoted (which was taken 20 years after the candidate), it didn't seem to matter either as its quality is far worse yet. -- JovanCormac 20:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree. IMO the level of detail and the resolution of that picture is much better than of this one. The picture of Ghandi looks like a scan of a print. Even in the 1920s I guess photography has been more sophisticated. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Econt (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality. --Karel (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blake Canterbury Pilgrims engraving.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2009 at 10:55:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Blake - uploaded by Petropoxy - nominated by Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) -- Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the first time I've nominated an fp, so let me know if I'm doing anything incorrectly. -- Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Einstein2 (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not only have you done everything correctly, you also nominated a great picture! -- JovanCormac 11:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 21:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /–blurpeace ^(talk) 03:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cane cutters in Jamaica.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 02:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown author (1880s) - uploaded and nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Interesting scene, but quality is not very good: blown highlights. Yann (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yes, much better. Yann (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support That picture is almost 130 years old. Plenty good enough given the age. -- JovanCormac 09:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose On second thought, the original image at [3] really does have significantly better quality. In fact, I'd rather see the original, un"restored" version Featured than the candidate. Maybe desaturation was a little overzealous? -- JovanCormac 09:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Much better now. -- JovanCormac 12:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contrast/brightness have been returned to original now. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 21:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it really is from the 1880:s the quality is totally amazing.--Korall (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 02:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice quality -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but the image has very poor quality (maybe not for its time but A image shouldn't be nominated just becauses its 130 years old) The Article Creator (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /–blurpeace ^(talk) 03:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Colonial Williamsburg ladies.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 20:10:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info

Women reenacting in Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia ,USA. created by User:Harvey Barrison - uploaded by Harvey Barrison - nominated by User:anon -- 122.170.16.121 20:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ -- 122.170.16.121 20:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Please log in to vote --Tony Wills (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obvious quality problems (cap of the rightmost woman, face of the woman next to her). -- JovanCormac 05:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Atmosphere and composition are OK, however blown highlights, not overly sharp, and some noise due to higher ISO. --Relic38 (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Barun Nice capture of an retrograde atmosphere.
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I agree with Relic38. Also tilt CCW and unhappy crop at bottom. But retrograde atmosphere really good. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad image, but for FP something missing. No WOW. --Karel (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the reasons already mentioned above. -- Petritap (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golden spot.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 18:21:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Anvikh - uploaded by Anvikh - nominated by UAnvikh -- Anvikh (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anvikh (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image is a great idea, however it could benefit from HDR to avoid the darkness and keep the reflection from being blown. --Relic38 (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dynamic range of the light conditions there are too wide for a single-exposure shot, making dark areas too dark and light areas too light. -- H005 16:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice image. --Vprisivko (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llorenzi (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but can't see any real "wow" here. The composition is a bit awkward, too. Otherwise very nice. -- Petritap (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KhubilaiOnTheHunt.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2009 at 09:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kubilai Khan on the Hunt, paint and ink on silk, by Liu Guandao, 1280 format = landscape

Kubilai Khan on a hunting expedition, paint and ink on silk, by Liu Guandao, 1280 - uploaded by Yaan - nominated by Tseno Maximov
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Francisco with approaching fog.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2009 at 02:54:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by mbz1 - uploaded by mbz1 - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Fog loves San Francisco and sometimes hugs the city as you see at the image :) --Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If something seems blurry, please note it is not really blurry, but rather some individualal patches of fog.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Great picture! -- JovanCormac 06:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Einstein2 (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Relic38 (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 14:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, Mila. Maedin\^talk 18:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 02:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. --Dschwen (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vertical are not vertical. Looks more pronounced on the right side of the image. Would support if corrected. --S23678 (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /–blurpeace ^(talk) 03:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Peter Salzburg panoramic view of interior small.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 23:36:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MatthiasKabel - uploaded by MatthiasKabel - nominated by NormanB (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! -- NormanB (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Yep, I had considered nominating that one as well. There is also a full size version with a mind-boggling 400+ Megapixels, but the file is corrupt because it was cut off after the first 100 MB. The image is not without its weaknesses, though, namely a weird grainy structure probably caused by the distorting projection, easily visible on and around the christmas trees. -- JovanCormac 06:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- An incredible amount of detail! MartinD (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Odd projection, bad crop on bottom. —kallerna™ 10:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Einstein2 (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, great picture, bad crop. Airwolf (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The projection seem too extreme to me, would be better with individual images. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine. Some informations how it was maked would be nice. --Kolossos (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't really expect much better than this. Great detail, correct exposure, overall great image of a church interior. - Keta (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop below is too tight, but nevertheless a great image! -- MJJR (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was about to oppose because of the distortion at the top from the projection used. But the magnificence of this panorama can really be enjoyed with the panoramic viewer. This image is not ment to be seen in "flat mode" --S23678 (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /–blurpeace ^(talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thomas Bresson - Sympetrum striolatum-16 (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2009 at 10:50:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The FP standards for dragonflies are extremely high. IMO this picture can't keep up with e.g. File:IMG 3140 odonata.jpg, which is the closest relative among FPs. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 12:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Sympetrum striolatum-3 (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2009 at 10:49:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The FP standards for dragonflies are extremely high. IMO this picture can't keep up with e.g. File:IMG 3140 odonata.jpg, which is the closest relative among FPs. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 12:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PZL-101 Gawron Góraszka 2008.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2009 at 14:57:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow, Maciej Hypś, Konflikty.pl - uploaded by Airwolf - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it falls slightly below size requirements, with no mitigating factor : a good picture, without a doubt, yet not a FP --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPX is for images that clearly have no chance, not marginal cases. This has achieved FP status elsewhere and is of high quality, it clearly has a chance. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep that in mind before using FPX in the future. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake :-) Albertus teolog (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks fine to me. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boeing 737-400 Centralwings 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2009 at 13:21:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow, Maciej Hypś, Konflikty.pl - uploaded by Airwolf - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Very nice shot of this subject, but I can't decide one way or the other. More thought required. --Relic38 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've cropped the image just a little bit so that there is not too much free space in the picture. Airwolf (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Living in the vicinity of a major airport (Amsterdam Schiphol), I fail to see what is so special about a Boeing 737. I can see several dozens of them each day when I bother to look up.;) MartinD (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request I would like to know - i.e. hear opinions from other contributors - whether such a reason for opposing is valid; in my opinion it is contradictory with the essential basis of Commons in general, and FPC in particular, which is: to gather media and select the best of those. One could easily say that there is nothing special in pictures of bugs (there are how many? 200 billion of them in the world?) or buildings (5 million people see the Statue of Liberty every day) or most cars (there's a Skoda Superb parking in front of my house every day). However, when a photo of a bug, building, or car is of satisfactory quality, it gets promoted. By the way, how many times have you seen a Centralwings airplane at Schiphol? Airwolf (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please voice your opinion here, and take part in the discussion. -- JovanCormac 06:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pablo000 (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too banal --Vprisivko (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support OK, the crop has helped. As for the specialness of a subject, I leave that out of my voting or I don't vote on that subject (for me that includes most non-photographic images). "One person's trash is another person's treasure". For that reason I don't ~~trash~~oppose subjects just because I cannot see the specialness of it. That's my . --Relic38 (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring, it's just a plane and not even an interesting point of view. I have tons of those pictures in my archive. --Björn König (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dead tree and Pacific.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2009 at 00:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by mbz1 - uploaded by mbz1 - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, here's the deal. Some time ago Richard nominated an image and asked you to figure out what was that image of. IMO it is an interesting idea. Yesterday while I was taken picture of ... few people asked me what it was. It was interesting that they did not know what is that relatively common thing at the sky. So IMO it will be interesting to know, if you know what it is. Right now neither image's description, nor category indicates what I took the image of. Of course I will add that info later after the game is over . Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When was that original nomination? I don't remember it. -- JovanCormac 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was few months ago, when Richard nominated a skin of an animal. If I find the nomination I will provide the link.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for your challenge, I would say the phenomenon visible in the picture (the small colored speck of light) is a parhelion, also called a "sun dog" (another picture of it is here). -- JovanCormac 06:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was fast, and thank you for responding to the challenge! Sun Dog it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Galileo Galilei 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2009 at 14:38:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Justus Sustermans (1597-1681) - uploaded and nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov-- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's very valuable for the encyclopedia but not FP, no wow--Tired time (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough by John Closterman.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2009 at 15:29:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John Closterman - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Tseno Maximov
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great scan. What about the NPG lawsuit, though? -- JovanCormac 16:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question It looks very very dark - does the original painting really look this way? -- H005 16:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's called low key lighting. --Ernie (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a photographic style, not of artwork of the 18th century. -- H005 17:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is another scan of this painting. -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it's called chiaroscuro. Low-key lighting is a photographic technique designed to recreate the chiaroscuro effect in a photograph. -- JovanCormac 20:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose However you call it, I believe this image hides too many details of the original painting. -- H005 22:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much too dark. See the other scan mentioned above. Yann (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tum kolegiata 2-2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2009 at 12:41:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Albertus teolog - uploaded by Berthold Werner - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky is noisy for a daylight shot, and sharpness is less than we have come to expect from this type of picture. Also, there is a slight chromatic aberration around the cross that tops the left bell tower. -- JovanCormac 13:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angela Merkel (2008).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2009 at 08:09:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by א - nominated by JovanCormac
Info Today might be Mrs. Merkel's final day as chancellor of Germany (of course she will technically stay in office until the new Bundestag is formed). Looking through our Merkel pictures, I was surprised to find this sympathetic portrait of her. The quality is very good (almost studio level) and the picture shows Merkel in a pose quite typical of her. I wish we had more high quality free photos of world leaders, but clearly they're hard to come by...
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 08:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 10:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice, but I don't love the crop. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 12:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support In spite of the crop it's a good portrait, and rare to get something of this quality about a current politician of her stature. Durova (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 18:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with both NEUROtiker and Durova, despite bad crop it is a good portrait and we don't have many people portrait here. ■ MMXX^talk 04:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Albertus teolog (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Babyaministraor (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kosiarz-PL 11:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Aston Martin DB6 r.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2009 at 19:31:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Aston Martin DB6. Created by Brian Snelson - uploaded by TYp392 - nominated by Anon
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is absolutely nothing special about this picture. It has good quality, but it is simply a car, a nice looking classic car, but just a car nonetheless. This would make a good VI, but its not what is needed at FP. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chinese honor guard in column 070322-F-0193C-014.JPEG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2009 at 07:25:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Staff Sgt. D. Myles Cullen (USAF) - uploaded by BrokenSphere - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. This can probably be used to create an "endless" texture of marching soldiers if it is cropped so the right edge can connect smoothly with the left. -- JovanCormac 10:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kosiarz-PL 11:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Relic38 (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bit noisy, but so awesome that I must support. —kallerna™ 16:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite minor quality issues. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 18:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 04:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Flying Freddy (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --BrokenSphere 06:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)-[reply]
Support, doubtlessly. --Vprisivko (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Female argynnis paphia in Lill-Jansskogen.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2009 at 16:25:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Korall -- Korall (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I know the composition is not extraordinary but Im quite happy with the detail of the wings.
Support -- Korall (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite a narrow depth of field which caused the eyes and some parts of the wings to be out of focus. Well, sharp eyes may not be too important in this case. --Ernie (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is very hard to get every single part of a butterfly in focus. Please comepare with File:Kleiner Fuchs, Aglais urticae.JPG for example that was featured this year but in my opinion have worse focus problems with the wings. I sharpened the eyes and hope the reslult is ok. --Korall (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. If the Aglais urticae file is of FP quality then yours is too. --Ernie (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sharpness/DOF is the only issue here for me. Shooting at f/8 may have been enough to overcome it. --Relic38 (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe that or unsharp mask plus downsampling to a quarter of the size. I guess im just naive to think this image can be in the same leauge as the already featured pictures of argynnis butterflies like this or this or this or even this. --Korall (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good case argument, however I probably would oppose most, if not, all of those. For me, your image is the best of the five, but I just can't decide one way or the other right now. --Relic38 (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Do you think its a good iea to withdraw this one and start nominating butterfly pictures for delisting?--Korall (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Background a little too spotty.It could be cleaned and the noise (senn in 100% view). Darius Bauzys (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hard disk head crash.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2009 at 22:10:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and - nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info the focus point is set to the hard disc head.
Comment Hope you didn't lose anything important. What model was the drive? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the hard disc model isn't important. It can be all. I don't lost any datas. My info: it was a hard disk from a raid system. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Econt (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very clear and interesting photo and hasn't got as much support as it probably deserves. Diliff (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice image & per Diliff --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whoops, forgot to support it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I find the crop a bit tight, why not show the whole disk platter? --Tony Wills (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- please read the image title: a hard disc crash. It should be only to show the hard disc head and the scratches. Nothing others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The disk platter is an important part of that equation. The more I look at it, the more awkward the crop looks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Niabot (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Helen Clark 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2009 at 19:09:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portrait of Helen Clark, Former Prime Minister of New Zealand. created by Jughead78 - uploaded by jughead78 - nominated by : Anon
Oppose Much as I would like to support a photo of our former prime minister, I don't think a very soft, air-brushed publicity photo really shows the character of her face. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice portrait, and we don't get too many portraits anyway.--Avala (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me, there just isn't any "wow factor" at all in this (rather ordinary-looking) portrait. Petritap (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The stark color contrast and "plain" face indicate that there was far too much postprocessing done here. -- JovanCormac 07:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kepler mission Delta II liftoff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2009 at 12:09:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Badseed - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a romantic, I know, but something about the the way the smoke and flame curl around the rocket makes it look...almost heavenly.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Considering its destination, it should look heavenly, don't you think? Airwolf (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 18:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 22:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)-[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fire and night - always beautiful. -- JovanCormac 07:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{Oppose}} Overexposed light from the fire looses detail~~ ;-) Support Very nice :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Sandboarding in Dubai.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2009 at 15:48:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Steven J. Weber - uploaded by Stefan Kühn - nominated by Airwolf -- Airwolf (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pure coolness, though it looks as if the color balance was slightly tilted towards red. -- JovanCormac 16:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Didn't know you can do this on sand dunes. MartinD (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 04:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Bauzys (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Albertus teolog (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Clifton Beach 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2009 at 04:05:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this image unaltered? I've never seen blue fog before... -- JovanCormac 06:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not fog, water with a long exposure. It is a graduated blend between two exposures but that is about it. The colour appears to be a combination of a reflection of the sky and the considerable white foam from the swell (it is a surf beach). Noodle snacks (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, Support. That should be noted in the image description though as to someone who doesn't know the place it sure looks like fog. -- JovanCormac 07:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilt (horizon). But mostly, this is more of a personal taste, I feel the composition would have been so much better if there was a greater contrast between the sky and the water (with colors or clouds). --S23678 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also wondered, if it was water or fog. IMO, if one is not sure about that, it means that the image is overprocessed. Besides I do not like blue color between the rocks. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a case of processing, just a long exposure (30 seconds) and waves breaking. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wonder, if it is possible to see the original image? I mean the waves are breaking only ashore, around the rocks, but all the water looks the same, and it does look as a blue fog. If I am to see the original, I might change my vote. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - For what it's worth I was there on the day and the colours seem accurate based off my images. Flying Freddy (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Question You were at this exact spot on the very same day Noodle snacks took that picture? -- JovanCormac 20:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes 58.169.109.98 02:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not much EV but great artistic shot. --Muhammad (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Babyaministraor (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but not that good. —kallerna™ 16:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hdr parliament.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2009 at 21:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Graeme Maclean - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Tseno Maximov
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate technical problems here, including noise, HDR frame misalignments, and the clock tower is tilted. --Relic38 (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Relic38. Looks amazing as a thumbnail, but full size disappoints. -- JovanCormac 06:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To the quality problems mentionned above, I'll add CA --S23678 (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Ship also moved, but I still like the picture.--Curnen (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overdone Tonemapping in my opinion. Flying Freddy (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hell Scroll Nara.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2009 at 17:09:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bamse - uploaded by Bamse - nominated by Bamse -- bamse (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This image shows the full scroll which is a National Treasure of Japan. Sections of the scroll can be found in Category:Hell Scroll (Nara National Museum).
Support -- bamse (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would it be possible to "straighten" the image so that the scroll is rectangular instead of sloping on the right? -- JovanCormac 21:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The image is a stitch of the individual sections. I could upload tiff files of the sections if somebody wants to try a better stitch.bamse (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Uploaded the tiff files and requested a better stitch at the wikipedia graphics lab. bamse (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the size and the historical value Yann (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alan Shepard in Space Suit before Mercury Launch - GPN-2000-001023.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2009 at 15:06:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Diaa abdelmoneim -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image is of Alan B. Shepard Jr., the first American to fly into space. The image is of very high quality and has a great composition. -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad quality for a photo taken in 1961 on earth (this wasn't taken in space). This looks like it dates from 1861 instead! Even the pictures taken on the moon eight years later had both color and better quality. Also, the crop is far from ideal. -- JovanCormac 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jovan. —kallerna™ 20:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider valued image instead? No way to go back in time and get this shot again, and it has historic importance. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaka feeding 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2009 at 11:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Kaka parrots spend a lot of time digging into tree trunks looking for their prize food - Huhu Beetle larvae. No doubt a delicious high energy fast food for them :-). Low light levels inside the forest in the late afternoon made it difficult to focus and freeze the action, but in this sequence of flash photos I managed to capture the moment of triumph :-).
Support -- Tony Wills (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is so unfortunate that the focus of the camera shifted to the background of the scene in the last shot... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the technical quality isn't perfect ;-). The bird was moving quite fast, I also moved the camera, slow shutter speed - surprising anything is in focus :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The first two are OK, the last two are out of focus. Yann (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus + hard to discern the bird from the background (could be my eyesight, of course). -- Petritap (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably has the idea that it is camouflaged :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no one seems to be thinking that capturing the moment overcomes slight technical deficiencies ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 06:54:05

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Clearly not special: Resolution borderline (just below the guidelines), dust spots (center, above the cup), scratches (left of the spoon handle), dirty, dull background (table). Can be retaken anytime, ergo no mitigation for those shortcomings.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 06:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 14:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per JC. --Relic38 (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Korall (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Boqueria.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 06:48:49

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Resolution (1280x960) far below the guidelines, sharpness borderline. A picture like this can be taken anytime at any market, ergo no mitigation for those shortcomings.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 06:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 14:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per JC. --Relic38 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Nominator --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lens Nikkor 50mm.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2009 at 17:27:45

Info An 1,2 MP image with visible noise of an object that any photographer with a DSLR camera should have at least one of.(Original nomination)
Delist -- Korall (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator. -- JovanCormac 06:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 14:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator. --Relic38 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kosiarz-PL 12:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce, uncompressed UMN source.png, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2009 at 21:02:51

Info This delisting nomination is designed (together with the FP nomination above) to switch from the uncompressed candidate version to this one as a Featured Picture. The other one is Featured on 4 Wikipedias already and is in the more suitable JPEG format. That way we will have one version that is Featured on many sites, and the uncompressed version as an alternative.
Info Please support, for a little less bureaucracy!
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 21:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agreed. Yann (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 09:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep delisting the best quality picture over a compressed picture is absolute madness. GerardM (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeating my reply from above: Besides the fact that quality obviously isn't an issue with such a photo, it has been discussed over and over again that PNGs should not be used for photographs. Only recently, a picture of a goat was opposed for the sole reason of being PNG rather than JPEG. -- JovanCormac 10:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Kosiarz-PL 12:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --RBID (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- TonyBallioni (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Extermination of Evil Shōki.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 19:30:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bamse - uploaded by Bamse - nominated by Bamse -- bamse (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This picture is part of a series found in Category:Extermination of Evil. All five scrolls are designated National Treasures of Japan for their high historical or artistic value. bamse (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- bamse (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. -- JovanCormac 05:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bengalia sp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2009 at 12:20:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 12:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's smallish, but the colors of that fly are very pretty and sharpness is good. The feet show detail that I don't believe I have seen before in a Commons image of a fly. -- JovanCormac 15:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The normal reasons + needs ID's. Sorry :(. —kallerna™ 20:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its already identified till genus and confirmed by two entomologists. Id further than this is almost never possible from a picture unless shots of some other features such as dissected genitalia are also taken. FWIW, we have tons of FPs with the genus id and you have even supported them. Wonder why the change of heart. --Muhammad (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info Species IDs aren't an FP requirement anyway. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good. -- Darius Bauzys (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sharp, reasonable DOF, however the flash brightened the background quite a bit. I just can't decide, sorry. --Relic38 (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Babyaministraor (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You oppose this yet support the terribly cropped leopard picture above? -- JovanCormac 06:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and of course: Please provide a reason for opposing as a courtesy to the nominator. -- JovanCormac 06:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something like "The normal reasons" is apparently sufficient ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I smell puppet. --Muhammad (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great! --Balû (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --DPC (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Effects of Hurricane Charley from FEMA Photo Library 7.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2009 at 13:45:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by FEMA - uploaded by Juliancolton - nominated by Juliancolton -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a high-quality illustration of the damage from a tropical cyclone. It's a bit small, but given the circumstances, it is among the best we can get on the subject. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llorenzi (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resolution is on the small side, but the picture is very sharp, especially given that it was taken from an aircraft. -- JovanCormac 17:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but camera location missed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Babyaministraor (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per JC. --Relic38 (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 16:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teddies in Space.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2009 at 20:45:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cambridge University Spaceflight - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info These bears were lifted to 30,085 metres above sea level on a latex high altitude balloon filled with He. The aim of the experiment was to determine which materials provided the best insulation against the -53 ° C temperatures experienced during the journey. Each of the bears wore a different space suit designed by 11-13 year olds from SPARKS science club at Parkside Community College and Coleridge Community College UK.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry. Yann (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry and bad crop. -- JovanCormac 07:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Bad quality, but a lot of wow. Airwolf (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As already said: Blur and bad crop. --Björn König (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see very strong mitigating reasons. Diti the penguin — 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too out of focus to be mitigated by the extreme rarity of the event. The crop is unfortunate as well. Definitely a valuable image. --Relic38 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support there are strong mitigating factors. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Babyaministraor (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)mitigating reasons.[reply]
Support Difficult to redo photograph - strong mitigating reasons overcome technical imperfections --Tony Wills (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OOF. —kallerna™ 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jovan --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wouldn't want to place a several thousand dollar camera under a helium balloon to overcome the mentioned quality problems - would you ? ;) --Curnen (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with a 50$ camera you can set the focus right, you know. ;o) Yann (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if this photo was really taken at 7,3 mm, you can imagine how close the teddies were. And I have not seen any 50$ camera, that can focus on a point that close. --Curnen (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DsMurat ^talk 14:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Chalcolestes viridis-20 (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2009 at 10:47:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Babyaministraor (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Tachina fera-4 (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2009 at 10:46:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lighting could have been better though --Muhammad (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, distracting background, no wow (for me, at least). Excellent technical quality, no doubt. -- Petritap (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Korall (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Typhoon saomai 060807.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2009 at 11:19:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Good kitty - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anything I could say about this picture couldn't sum up the sheer breathtaking beauty of it. So I'll let the image do the talking.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's beautiful, alright, yet could be even more so if the typhoon weren't cropped so tightly. -- JovanCormac 15:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's great, certainly, but it's not particularly special or high quality. There is very little land in the picture, making it difficult to determine where you're looking at. None of the storms are well-developed, either; compare File:Ivan and Joan 18 oct 1997 0503Z N14.jpg, two much more mature and symmetrical typhoons. Also, the crop isn't especially impressive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Babyaministraor (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barn Pano(9467)-Relic38.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2009 at 16:17:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Relic38 -- Relic38 (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Note that the silo was actually tilted, not the image. In fact it had cables around it to keep it from collapsing. Unfortunately, nothing could prevent the bulldozers from knocking it down. --Relic38 (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Relic38 (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak Oppose Crop is too tight IMO, especially on the right side.~~ Also I find the buildings in the background too distracting. Apart from that it's a very nice shot of a fascinating building! --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I change my vote now that the main reason for oppose has been fixed, but I can't bring myself to support. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 13:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have loved to support this one (the "leaning tower" is cool), but unfortunately, nothing in this picture is really sharp. -- JovanCormac 19:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC) I change my vote to Support, since the new version uploaded by Relic38 is indeed an improvement. -- JovanCormac 10:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I guess we need a discussion about sharpness standards, as some people put the bar very high recently. -- MJJR (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem, I'm ready to have this discussion any time.
    About this particular picture: The foreground (grass) is so blurry you can barely make out its structure, which looks quite odd at full resolution. The main subject (barn), while in focus, lacks crispness. The shingles on the tower are quite blurry around the edges, as are the two weathertops on the roof. The background, obviously, isn't sharp either. Overall, the image is missing a part that's really crisp which would serve as the focus of attention for the viewer, and because of that it shouldn't be featured IMO. -- JovanCormac 09:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both the crop and the sharpness is fine with me.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think sharpness is fine but I agree with NEUROtiker, only thing that bother me is the tight crop. ■ MMXX^talk 05:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have lots more space on the right side (two more frames), but it's just trees. I'll see about adding some more to the right side. --Relic38 (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think the sharpness is more than good enough for an 18 megapixel image. --Aqwis (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Done New version uploaded with a wider crop and a minor adjustment to sharpen a little. I would appreciate it if everyone could check again. Thanks in advance. --Relic38 (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good, very aesthetic --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Calliteara pudibunda caterpillar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2009 at 15:22:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys -- Darius Bauzys (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Bauzys (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support cute --Mbz1 (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ra'ike T C 17:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I could count its hair. If I didn't miscount, that must be 2365 pieces ;-))[reply]
Comment imo it is underexposed and needs the levels boosted. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is slightly underexposed, but nothing dramatic. Is it just me or is there a lot of JPEG artifacts around the single hairs and the edges of the black segments? --Relic38 (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality isn't good enough to FP IMO. —kallerna™ 10:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Can you elaborate? I am not a professional photographer, and I want to know the mistakes made. Thank you. -- Darius Bauzys (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMO the biggest problem is posterisation. —kallerna™ 12:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chaplin2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2009 at 23:02:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown photographer (1900-1910s) - uploaded, cleaned and nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, I've never seen him like this before. Side note: Please use the "Information" template on the description page, without it that page tends to get messy. -- JovanCormac 06:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I added the {{Information}} template. English description would be useful. Yann (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear FP for me --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 04:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Connie Mack3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2009 at 05:42:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Paul Thompson - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Connie Mack.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Philadelphia Athletics manager Connie Mack. Connie Mack was the longest serving manager in Major League Baseball history. This portrait was taken between his team's 1910 and 1911 World Series championships.
Support -- Durova (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting portrait (eerie look), flawless restoration. -- JovanCormac 06:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Babyaministraor (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Fort Baker and Angel Island.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2009 at 01:24:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by mbz1 - uploaded by mbz1 - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Your photography is really great lately. Quality-wise, there are no problems here. However, unlike your other recent nominations, this one is just not extraordinary enough IMO. -- JovanCormac 05:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I of course realize that everybody's opinion is different, and I respect yours, but to me the nominated image seems much more extraordinary than let's say, for example, an image of two rocks with forest in between

--Mbz1 (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image you are referring to is really, really atmospheric, though; as are many of your own nominations. For me, this just isn't one of them. -- JovanCormac 10:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should "atmospheric" be added to FPC criterias? Just kidding :) As I said I do respect your opinion, but I have a very different one. The nominated image not only depicts in great details historic Fort Baker, but it also has a great mood - the fog over the Bay. Of course it is my own opinion about my own image that could be biased

. This image is very dear and very extraordinary to me for one more reason that is not connected to the image itself. I mean one amazing support vote it got on English Wikipedia FP nomination

--Mbz1 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like it, and definitely meets the technical requirements. --Relic38 (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I having a deja vue, or didn't we just feature a very similar picture? --Dschwen (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you're having a deja vue

or maybe you're mistaking it with the nomination of the same image on English Wikipedia. I nominated one of the similar pictures here on Commons few weeks ago, but it was never featured.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose I agree with Jovan Cormac. While the image has great detail and very nice colours it doesn't appeal to me as a whole in the way I would expect it from a featured picture. Sorry, I can't really put it in words. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think "weak" or "strong" make any difference in counting the votes, so may I please ask you next time, when opposing my image do not loose time for "weak" or "strong"? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about differences in the vote count, it's just a part of expressing your opinion. Airwolf (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but the thing is that in English Wikipedia "weak" and "strong" do make difference in the counts of the votes, while here they apparently do not. That's why IMO adding "weak" / "strong" could create a confusion, if a nomination is closed manually, for example, (sometimes it does). IMO the opinion could be expressed in the comment in some other ways, of course if there's something to express at all.

.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just like Airwolf said. A plain "oppose" sometimes seems too harsh to me, when there's just small things that keep me from voting support. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NEUROtiker, I am sorry, if my comment sounded too harsh for you. I did not mean it. The thing is that to me "oppose" is "oppose" no matter weak or strong, and as I mentioned adding "weak" or "strong" might create some confusion. You said "small things that keep me from voting support". I hope you do agree there's a rather big difference between voting oppose (even weak one) or not voting support (not voting at all I mean). IMO the nominated image did not deserve to be opposed, but it is my opinion, and you could have your own, an absolutely different one. I respect it no matter what. Best regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Mila, I always prefer just put a "comment" instead of "weak oppose", I think if I don't have any strong reason to oppose, my vote should not get counted as a vote. but about the image, It's a nice panorama, but the crop is very tight at bottom and right. ■ MMXX^talk 05:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is. I had no other choice because of the cliff.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Where was that helicopter you had in Hawaii? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After my amazing Mauna Loa image taken from a helicopter was opposed for no scale and no horizont I've decided never again to nominate another image taken from a helicopter... except maybe just one more :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per NEUROtiker. —kallerna™ 09:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kallerna --S23678 (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Relic38 --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Leopard.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2009 at 23:25:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Vladsegrt - uploaded by Vladsegrt - nominated by Vladsegrt -- Vladsegrt (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vladsegrt (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Terrible crop and sharpness problems. No chance of promotion. -- JovanCormac 07:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Babyaministraor (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop. Yann (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with JovanCormac. Also it is Cheetah, NOT a Leopard --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop, sharpness. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 10:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per technical issues outlined above, and the lack of an accurate/descriptive title. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No reason. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmm, let me see can I find a new good enough oppose reason: Yes: distracting paws (see annotation). --Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 10:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meulaboh Hovercraft 050110-N-7586B-120.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2009 at 16:19:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Bart A. Bauer - uploaded by Davenbelle - nominated by Airwolf -- Airwolf (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This proves that the wow factor can be sad. Airwolf (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I agree with Airwolf. MartinD (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valuable document. -- JovanCormac 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Relic38 (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Powerful image --S23678 (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much going on. —kallerna™ 10:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llorenzi (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kallerna ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena

File:Shrimp fisherman.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2009 at 23:18:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pleasing composition but I find my eye wandering out of the top of frame, although this may not be the best place to add a vignette to fix that. Can I ask why you used f/8? Were you after those trees in focus or a case of f8 and be there? - Flying Freddy (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because f/8 is generally the sharpest aperture you can have on most lenses, and the standards of landscape photography are that everything must be in focus. Diti the penguin

— 15:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

- I'm assuming you're not a sock of Tomas? In which case I was more after his intentions than a lesson on standards of landscape photography. It seems to me that if your justification was correct he'd be shooting at around f/11 if scared of diffraction or whatever he could push the f-stop to whilst keeping the subject sharp if not. Furthermore your comment indicates you believe pretty much all work by pictorial photographers is "wrong", there are styles apart from Adams and Weston style techniques. I was interested more if there was a compositional rather than technical reason though. Flying Freddy (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Flying Freddy: many comments possible... Canon 50D, due to chip design and according to some "experts" with apertures smaller than f8 produce blurry images... f8 is generally the optimum aperture in most lenses... in this case, focusing on the fisherman, from where I was, and considering the hyperfocal distance, everything was bound to come out sharp... and yes, I desired that in order to place the subject within the physical context where he works, etc... In short, I wanted a sharp picture because this is a picture of a fisherman, a fishing method and a fishing environment... basically an informative picture. As far as f8, that is generally my prefered aperture, I seldom use smaller apertures, and depending on the desired effect, lens, etc., I open up from there...--Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the explanation. Would you be tempted to clone out the small dark branch on the lower RHS?
Support Technically not brilliant, but strong composition is much more interesting than uninterestingly composed technical perfection. Flying Freddy (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Stephan's Quintet Hubble 2009.full.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2009 at 21:25:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hubble Space Telescope - uploaded by Friendlystar - nominated by Tseno Maximov
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support File size seems a little extreme (54 MB for 40 Mpx?) but the picture is beautiful. We can't feature enough of those as far as I'm concerned. -- JovanCormac 06:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. Jacopo Werther (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2009 at 20:59:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce - uploaded by Ed g2s - nominated by JovanCormac
Info The first ever photograph. This nomination is designed (together with the delisting nomination below) to switch from the uncompressed version to this one as a Featured Picture. It's Featured on 4 Wikipedias already and is in the more suitable JPEG format. That way we will have one version that is Featured on many sites, and the uncompressed version as an alternative.
Info Please support, for a little less bureaucracy!
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 20:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't really care, but I see your point, therefore I support this candidate. Airwolf (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NormanB (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and thanks for the nomination!--Mbz1 (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lookatthis (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the first photographer. ■ MMXX^talk 05:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- low quality, blown hilights. (kidding) Cacophony (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support important historical document in its best quality --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose moving from an uncompressed format to a compressed format is the absolute worst reason to defeature a picture. GerardM (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a photograph (albeit an old one). It has been discussed a million times that PNGs are unsuited for photographs. Only recently, a photo - I believe it showed a goat - was opposed for being PNG rather than JPEG. -- JovanCormac 10:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Opuntia Cactus Heart.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2009 at 01:35:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by factsofphotos - uploaded by factsofphotos - nominated by factsofphotos -- Factsofphotos (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Factsofphotos (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed. -- JovanCormac 07:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice heart shape on the cactus, but otherwise the photo just isn't what a FP should be. Sorry. Petritap (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed. --99of9 (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Overexposure makes this impossible.

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:Gniezno Drzwi - modlitwa.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2009 at 13:23:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop (cuts through a second scene), sharpness problems. -- JovanCormac 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Babyaministraor (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop, no wow--Tired time (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh lightning. Actually surprised to see that it has been promoted to QI. --Slaunger (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tenodera sinensis 3 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2009 at 11:13:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Jacopo Werther (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is great. I was wondering myself whether a photo with the whole subject in focus would not bring a more astonishing result. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result will be more "classic" but if it does not win the votes I would propose another version;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see that other version. This is a little to artsy for my taste. -- JovanCormac 18:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they are below it in "other version" ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one? --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 22:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed that. IMO File:Tenodera sinensis 5 Luc Viatour.jpg has the best composition. -- JovanCormac 07:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support E.T. go home! --Karel (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DPC (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support funny alien look in camera :) -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's my favorite ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stuttgart-Schlossplatz-at-night.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2009 at 12:49:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The northern fountain and the New Castle in Stuttgart, Germany.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Curnen (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Curnen (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient quality: Grainy sky, blurry, artifacts presumably due to postprocessing. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 14:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info I have a 60 cm x 40cm print of it on my wall, which looks fantastic. However, I now reduced the filesize to hopefully minimize this problem. --Curnen (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bad crop on left and bottom. -- JovanCormac 17:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Please give me a hint, what you don't like. I would like to improve ! --Curnen (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the left part of the fountain's basin is cut off, as is part of the bottom, which gives the picture a cramped composition. Also, the shot shows a substantial tilt (probably ~2 degrees) clockwise, especially visible when looking at the fountain, which appears to be leaning towards the right. The light and the water in the picture are beautiful, but sadly, they don't quite make up for the shortcomings in other areas. -- JovanCormac 07:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not of the highest quality. Tiptoety ^talk 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question You oppose because you don't like the image or just because I resized it ? If it would be because of the resizing, I would be grateful, if somebody of the hardcore-voters would explain me the right balance between size and noise. Because to me for example grainy and blurry are two opposites and it seems, that NEUROtiker found both in the image. If I use more noise reduction, the image becomes even more blurry, so I either need to accept a grainy sky (which is only visible, if you zoom in like mad and is not noticeable even in a large print) or I need to do a resizing. Or is there a third option I haven't thought about ? --Curnen (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sky is the main problem concerning the grain. And in the high resolution version the whole picture seems a bit unsharp. In addition there are a lot of artifacts, mostly vertical lines throughout the picture as well as aliasing visible on the white windows and doors. They are more prominent in the original picture but still visible in the scaled down version. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noisy, bad crop. —kallerna™ 08:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

: Ok, I think I got the message ;-) Curnen (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Question Better ? --Curnen (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a computer generated picture. --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWell, a DSLR is a computer, so what shall I replay to that ? ;-) --Curnen (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Welcome to Commons :P. Sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose as well. There appears to be some sort of distortion and artifacting along the roofline, the building suffers from chromatic abberation, and looks very washed out. As a whole, it is rather noisy, and perhaps underexposed in places. The crop of the fountain ruins what would otherwise have been a nice compostion. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

: Ok, I think I got the message ;-) Curnen (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OklahomaSooners-TulsaGoldenHurricane-2009-RyanReynolds-Tackle.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2009 at 15:21:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

College football player tackling opposing player

Info created by John Silks - uploaded by NMajdan - nominated by NMajdan -- nmajdan (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- nmajdan (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry to be fussy about technicalities but the resolution of this otherwise great photo is below the requirement for FPs. -- Petritap (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution. —kallerna™ 19:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please delist.nmajdan (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? just add {{withdraw}} --~~~~ if you no longer want to nominate it. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --nmajdan (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ani Tshamkhung Female Monastery Lhasa Tibet Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2009 at 17:04:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Lucag - nominated by Airwolf -- Airwolf (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting composition is spoilt by the water droplets; quality is borderline as well. -- JovanCormac 17:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not my intention to try to convince you to change your vote, but in my opinion the water adds a lot to the composition. This is, however, just my personal taste. Airwolf (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would add to the composition if it wasn't cropped so tightly. The way it is it just serves as a distraction IMO. -- JovanCormac 07:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background. As for the water droplets, I agree with JovanCormac. -- Petritap (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:B cuneata gnangarra 23.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2009 at 13:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gnangarra - uploaded by Gnangarra - nominated by -- Gnan garra 13:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The endangered Banksia cuneata in late bud giving rise to its common name of matchstick banksia
Support -- Gnan garra 13:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed, blurry. -- JovanCormac 14:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made an adjustment to the Brightness/Contrast. Probably too shallow DOF for FP, but maybe QI? --Relic38 (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Babyaministraor (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus. --Karel (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF -- Petritap (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it is a nice illustration of the matchstick common name. The composition, subject colors and subject are interesting, but not much is in focus and somehow the grey background does not work well for me - not sure what the best background color would have been though. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chinese POWs south of Koto-ri in Korea HM-SN-98-06779.JPEG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2009 at 23:39:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sgt. F. C. Kerr (USMC) - uploaded by BrokenSphere - nominated by Airwolf (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but the quality is average, even for an old picture. Also some cleaning needed: a line in the sky and a spot on the soldier's boot on the lower right. Yann (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funnily enough, it looks like a studio shot (the mountains in the background look painted). -- JovanCormac 06:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support For JovanCormac. Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Yann. -- Petritap (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tree lion 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 10:32:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cody.pope - uploaded by Cody.pope - nominated by 10:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC) -- Pmlinediter (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pmlinediter (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Resolution below guidelines, blurry

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

-- JovanCormac 11:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AT-4 live-fire.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2009 at 12:36:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sgt. Bryson K. Jones - uploaded by Spellcast- nominated by Airwolf -- Airwolf (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (and: holy cow!) -- Airwolf (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This picture is a fraud. One of the cartridges flying through the air still has a bullet in it (see image annotation), so it can't have been ejected from a gun as the picture suggests. My guess is that someone picked up a bunch of spent rounds (including the intact one) and threw them in the air while another soldier took a picture to make it look like an "action shot". The cartridges are confusing anyway since the only weapon shown is an RPG and it clearly uses other types of ammunition. Chromatic aberration and image noise are quite bad as well. -- JovanCormac 13:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hey, you're right. That's exactly what I was trying to check, but somehow I oversighted this one bullet. On the other hand, in whatever way the picture was taken, that bullet there is strange, because do take note, that it's not like all that junk is being thrown out of a machine gun firing simultaneously with the launcher. The assumption is that it was launching the AT-4 that pushed the empty cartridges in the air. Airwolf (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I dont have an issue with an individual bullet because of the fire rates of the M-60(600 rounds per minute) one would expect that misfire would occassionally occur and that the gun would discharge then like any other and the scatter looks normal see this one for comparison Gnan garra 13:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The unspent cartridge (misfire) can happen in a 'chain gun', but I cannot say how the cartridge would be ejected if it would be on a different trajectory than the spent ones. In any case, no gun ejects cartridges in such a haphazard manner. There would be a stream formed by the cartridges, with the chain bits in a less defined line around the cartridges. I believe they were trying to make it look like the gun was above them somewhere. --Relic38 (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I said, it's not about there being a machine gun firing somewhere around them at this very moment. It's that there was a machine gun which left those cartridges which are now thrown in the air by the whoosh of the AT-4. Airwolf (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That would be a lot of whoosh to do that, especially since there is absolutely no trace of a rocket trail coming from the AT-4. --Relic38 (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That, and the bullets and debris would be blown away from the blast, not towards it. They've obviously just thrown the stuff into frame. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the bullets are a distraction to the image rather then an enhancement as they have no context to the subject, given that the photograph was during an exercise a cleaner composition would be possible. Gnan garra 13:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others + noisy. Yann (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I fully agree with Jovan, Gnangarra and other opposers. -- MJJR (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Jovan. --Xavigivax (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary Magdalen Donatello OPA Florence.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2009 at 18:46:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Marie-Lan Nguyen, nominated by Maedin
Info Maddalena by the Italian artist Donatello is a wood sculpture of the Biblical and historical figure of Mary Magdalene. Here, she appears penitent, tormented, and frail from fasting. This figure was housed in the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore, otherwise known as Florence Cathedral, in Florence. It's now based next door in the Museo dell'Opera del Duomo (a museum associated with the Duomo). Donatello sculpted this in 1455 or so, over 500 years ago.
Support I have been to the Museo and saw the Maddalena. She's even more heart-stoppingly agonising in person. I was captivated by her the moment I saw her. Unfortunately, the poor camera that I had at the time didn't do her justice. But I have found this one, the only decent shot of her on Commons. Although the Maddalena sculpture is head-to-toe, the area where she is displayed does not make photography easy (a small space and many distracting things around her), and she is often backlit by strong sunlight. Consider also that flash photography is oft-frowned upon or prohibited in museums. I think this close-up is an excellent representation of Donatello's most expressive work. Maedin\^talk 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure it's a lovely sculpture, Maedin, but I got the fright of my life when I opened up FPC this morning and was greeted by that face. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry! At least it woke you up. . . you didn't even need the coffee, right? Maedin\^talk 20:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose Very interesting statue, but the crop on the hands should be better if it is to be featured. -- JovanCormac 11:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew someone would care about that, :( Maedin\^talk 12:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equally regretful oppose - it is a wonderful image but per Jovan I'm afraid & the hands are out of focus. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Herby and Jovan. But it clearly would sail through VI, as it's a hard shot to get and it's not likely we'd get better easily. ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. Mondalor (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I saw this sculpture many years ago. It is breathtaking and very touching. I'd like to support this image, but I think Jovan is right... -- MJJR (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:M Gerards Kruispoort R01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2009 at 18:58:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Marcus Gerards (1562) - scanned by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC). -- Detail of the first reliable town map of late medieval Bruges (1562). It is one of the finest examples of 16th century town mapping in Europe and a major source for the history of Bruges.[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While the quality is certainly there, the thin lines and lack of color make the picture look rather ordinary when compared to, say File:Quad Flandria.jpg. -- JovanCormac 07:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The thin lines are characteristic for an etching. About the lack of colour: of this particular map only one (very badly preserved) copy is hand coloured, all the other original prints are not coloured. On Commons you can find coloured details of the map of Marcus Gerards, but those are modern reproductions and not originals. -- MJJR (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- strong encyclopaedic value, it is good that all kinds of material find their way to the featured pictured. GerardM (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Encyclopaedic value doesn't mean it should be a FP. While I realize its documentary value, I fail to see any "wow factor" here. -- Petritap (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Using the historical evaluation criteria of FP suggests that wow factor isn't required per se (and it's a matter of taste, I'm a bit wowed by it). ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olivia Wilde by Tao Ruspoli.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2009 at 16:26:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Olivia Wilde photographed by her husband Tao Ruspoli. created by: Tao Raspoli - uploaded by Tao Ruspoli - nominated by 122.169.91.1 -- 122.169.91.1 16:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose It's nice to see such an artistic portrait here on Commons, but while the photo looks beautiful as a thumbnail, at full size it does have sharpness issues (hand), and it looks like the color balance is off as well (shifted towards red, shown by the fact that the red pigments in her skin are unnaturally emphasized). On a side note, regardless of whether you really are en:Tao Ruspoli or not, expect to get doubted and your pictures marked as copyright violations. Happens whenever a new user signs up and claims to be a celebrity. I don't like that it's that way, but there's nothing I can do about it. So if you really are the aristocrat and filmmaker you are claiming to be, please do not be insulted when that happens. -- JovanCormac 17:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, beautiful portray. --Vprisivko (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artistic photo, but not encyclopaedic. D kuba (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --DsMurat ^talk 14:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and remember: Commons is not Wikipedia, we do not store only encyclopedic images. Airwolf (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor lighting and color (too dark and red). Not an especially compelling composition. Sharpness could be better as well. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Kaldari.--Karel (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Kaldari. Yann (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support sharpness is good for a 7.8MP picture. Pleasant looking and notable subject, and the choice of white balance / lighting is acceptable to set the mood in the picture. --Dschwen (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna™ 10:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's your copy/paste template. It means nothing, is not a reason, is impolite, and unhelpful. --Dschwen (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but I agree with Dschwen. Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I contest this. Kallernas vote is decisive here. And I'm not willing to accept his behaviour anymore. --Dschwen (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with Dschwen. Kallerna's reason is unreasonable for opposing. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the nominating guidelines, it says that "Pictures should be in some way special" in order to be featured. "Nothing special" seems to be addressing that (rather vague) requirement. Kaldari (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh huh... So a beautiful free high quality portrait of a reasonably well known actress is "nothing special"? Coooome oooooon! --Dschwen (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a personal oppinion. It's might be quite hard to draw the border in between where a reason is valid or not if we should evaluate that for all votes. For example one could also argue that D_Kubas vote should be invalid as the guidelines never say anything about encyclopaedic value, in fact it indicates that it is not needed: "This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.". To me it's fine saying "nothing special" even though a more constructive comment would be more helpful of course. Also if we only have reasons for invalidating oppose votes it would kind of make it easier for images to get promoted as there are no way to invalidate support votes, not sure that is what we really want. Maybe our rules about voting is just not clear enough. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would not be annoyed by this that much if it weren't a pattern in Kallerna's voting. Look for yourself. This is counter-productive and impolite, and nothing but a slap in the face of the contributors. Without as much as a shred of a reason these opposes are worthless at best. --Dschwen (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I completely agree with Dschwen. The oppose votes only criticized the artistic choices made by the photographer, not the quality or merit of the resulting still. And nothing special? I disagree, I'm sure this was a special moment between Mr. and Mrs. Ruspoli. There aren't many intimate photographs of such quality on the commons. ˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunflower with ladybug.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2009 at 12:34:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Close-up of a sunflower with ladybug (Coccinella septempunctata) on it.
Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something's wrong with the photo (look on fullsize). —kallerna™ 15:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm looking at it and I don't see anything wrong. Could you be more specific on what you spotted it? --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The edge of the flower looks strange for example. Looks a bit as if the blue background is not the original background. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors. Yann (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird artifacts at border of flower and sky. --Dschwen (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S.: I'm not too fond of the colors. The yellow looks a bit sickly green. How much postprocessing went into this image? --Dschwen (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Dschwen. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for all the comments! I've uploaded a new version (you may have to purge your cache), in which I removed the previous adjustments. I would appreciate your feedback in this new version. Thanks! --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This did nothing about the artifacts around the edge of the flower. --Dschwen (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Color balance is still not perfect, also there is a weird distortion around the petals in the resized version. -- JovanCormac 09:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough for me with the "inquisition" :) Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:APowerlineTower.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2009 at 11:49:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A work of art. -- JovanCormac 13:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed! --NormanB (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination --Böhringer (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness could be better, but... Yann (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 02:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 06:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann. —kallerna™ 08:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i'm sorry to Oppose, but the picture just doesn't appeal to me in any way - it has little educational value, even less artistic value, and absolutely no wow factor. Being in a very ironical mood today, I might also refer to a different nomination and add: extremely ordinary, even commoplace object - because it is . The latter is not an issue for me, however, but the first three are. As for technical quality, I know nothing about it. Airwolf (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW -- Ra'ike T C 20:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --AM (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Early light heron fishing.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2009 at 10:34:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, beautiful picture, but still just another dawnphoto. Quite noisy. —kallerna™ 11:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per kallerna. -- JovanCormac 11:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I cannot agree that it is just "just another dawnphoto". As a matter of fact the image is not only beautiful, but it also has a great EV. Did you notice the other heron much farther down? It is amazing to see that the water does not get any deeper for such a great distance, and not in a lake, but in English Channel! Small noise in the right hand corner could always be removed or cut off.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The heron is too small, and there is nothing apart from that. Beautiful anyway. Yann (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The heron is too small, but picture too nice, per MBz1 -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Mbz1 and George. Diti the penguin — 14:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mbz1 - though I can't see the other heron...--Nilfanion (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the annotation for the second heron. I hope you see it now :)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great mood shot. Complaints about noise are a bit irrelevant - low light level: a long exposure would just give that milky water look (which while nice, is a different sort of shot) and would blur any movement from the birds, waiting for more light will miss the moment and be less interesting. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Missing wow. A sunset/rise has to have that extra bit to be special. Lycaon (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Mbz1 and Tony Wills ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Petroica boodang Meehan Range 1 crop.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2009 at 23:41:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tony Wills said there were not enough birds. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for heeding my call with this great photo, as usual good detail, good lighting (forehead white patch perhaps loosing detail, but great overall) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 04:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. Mondalor (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 07:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Grass Snake - Natrix natrix.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2009 at 11:42:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 11:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not as striking as the recently promoted File:AD2009Aug07 Natrix natrix 01.jpg. The blur on the tongue is a little distracting, also the composition is not quite as great as in the aforementioned picture. -- JovanCormac 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per JovanCormac. —kallerna™ 08:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as per JovanCormac. Yann (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 07:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pachygrapsus marmoratus 2009 G3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2009 at 14:28:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Marbled rock crab, female. The Black sea
Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. While not technically perfect, the color contrast between the crab and the algae is really appealing. It's amazing what you do with that simple camera. -- JovanCormac 15:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The best of your crabs... Yann (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, noisy, not the sharpest photo I've seen. Good, but not FP. —kallerna™ 11:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak - per Jovan. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Tui 06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2009 at 21:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info A bird with real character, Tui aggressively chase off other birds even trying it on with much larger birds like Kākā (who ignore them :-). This bird has ruffled up its feathers giving it a bigger than usual appearance and is squawking very loudly (and raucously). Other nectar feeders such as Bellbirds and Hihi must wait for the Tui to leave before they get a feed. Tui are often perceived as black birds with a white bow-tie, but there are iridescent greens and blues along with brown in their plumage. Another feature is the strange white curls on the back of the neck and back. The beak is covered with yellow flax pollen grains, tui are important pollinators of flax flowers. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tony Wills (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting bird, good quality, and interesting and informative info!--Mbz1 (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the background somewhat distracting. Also, the composition leaves something to be desired (especially as the main subject is right at the centre of the image).--Petritap (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that most FPs of profile views of whole birds basically have the bird in the centre of the frame, there really isn't much choice unless you want lots of empty space in the frame - which people then complain about :-). As it happens, I usually aim to frame these photos with the eye of the bird near one of the intersections as defined by the rule of thirds. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose. The bird is really interesting to look at, but the head is blurry and the background is distracting. -- JovanCormac 14:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The background question is an interesting one - en:WP appear to prefer the fashion of having a completely burred background so that you can't see what is there. I think that is useful for the 'specimen' picture in the info box on en:wp:animal pages due to their small size, but in general I prefer to see an animal in its natural environment, some real context. I think that some would prefer all insect pictures, for example, to be studio shots with a neutral background, all too sterile for me :-). Someone has produced a blurred background version of this photo, I might post it as an alternative to see if that pleases people more :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good quaity image, but not enough for FP. --Karel (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 21:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If I had taken this shot, I would have uploaded it for is value, but not nominated it on FP because of the poor quality. Lycaon (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intrigued at least by two opposes above, one which cites lack of quality & the other which says it is a good quality image. The bird itself & its perch are sharp. The blurred background has the effect of emphasising the subject which is right to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The bird's head is not "sharp", it is blurred. Look at the eye, look at the beak at full resolution please. -- Petritap (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The beak is moving as it crys out. I actually thought the main problem there was that the face was not well lit. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain --Avala (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well tell us what you like, and what you dislike about it :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red-clawed crab.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2009 at 13:42:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Björn König - uploaded by Björn König - nominated by Björn König -- Björn König (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting to look at, but the low contrast makes it too hard to see where the rock ends and the crab begins. -- JovanCormac 14:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see the crab clearly Gnan garra 14:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice!! --Luc Viatour (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Babyaministraor (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Could use more contrast, otherwise it is is nice. --Relic38 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, but do not forget to add a category. - Darius Bauzys (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost looks like one of Richard's macros... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I forgot to support my own work --Björn König (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not too familiar with underwater photography, but this seems like a fine piece of it. I wouldn't change much. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose Not identified! (would be strong support if it were). Lycaon (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perisesarma bidens is a species that is - among others - commonly known as red-clawed crab. --Björn König (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--DPC (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For reasons stated by JovanCormac and Lycaon. -- Petritap (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Björn König (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

Comment Although I'm not a fan of manipulating photos in that way, I brightened up the crab slightly and desaturated the wood in the background. I hope you can see it better now. --Björn König (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer the original, as the crab looks a bit washed out after the change. --Relic38 (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer the original as well --Björn König (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undeceided. I'll try to create another version. --Björn König (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support A considerable improvement IMO. Maybe it's my monitor (though according to Commons:Image_guidelines#Your_monitor it is calibrated just right), but in the original version the crab's abdomen blends with the wood almost totally. -- JovanCormac 12:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit version is better -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose Not identified! (would be strong support if it were). Lycaon (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DPC (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The voting period for this candidate is over, but the FPCBot is leaving this for manual investigation due to use of multiple images. Closing this candidate needs to be done using the manual instructions.

/FPCBot (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oasis in Lybia.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2009 at 09:35:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sfivat - uploaded by Sfivat - nominated by erobbin -- Erobbin (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Erobbin (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution is too low for a picture of this kind. -- JovanCormac 11:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful picture. I would support if resolution were higher. Petritap (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution - Images (save animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 x 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it had 50 more pixels of sky would people then support it? Guidelines are not cut-off lines. It is an interesting photo and of good quality --Tony Wills (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support For Tony Wills. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution. Give them a finger, they take your hand, give them a hand, they take your arm. Soon we will allow 640x480 images again :-(. --Lycaon (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution. —kallerna™ 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tony --Muhammad (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tony.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The relatively low resolution is a pity, but picture value is in so much more than just one technical property. --NormanB (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, however resolution needs to be higher for this type of image (I personally like to see at least 4MP for a landscape). --Relic38 (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice picture, but not enough for a FP. Wouln't support it with 50 pixels more of sky, eithter.--Javier ME (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Larva of Papilio memnon 09sai .jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2009 at 01:21:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by 池田正樹 - uploaded by 池田正樹 - nominated by 池田正樹 -- masaki ikeda (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- masaki ikeda (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Strange color of caterpillar's head. It is a real, or just light play on here? - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! —kallerna™ 08:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The DOF is a bit small, the hairs around the feet are well in focus, but when it gets up to the false 'eye' it is not good. But it does show this bunched up defensive mode quite well, where it looks like the caterpillar has a large head and eye to scare off predators (and photographers :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /–blurpeace ^(talk) 14:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dutrieuc.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2009 at 21:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bain News Service - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Kaldari -- Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fully restored high-res historic image. -- Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am speechless... Yann (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, more historic images, more, more, more... Airwolf (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Airwolf. -- JovanCormac 06:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Octopus cyaneain Kona.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2009 at 02:07:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1
Info Now bear with me on this one please. Imagine a very shallow reef few hundreds feet from shore. It was so shallow that I cut my hand, and the cut was bleeding. There was a mean looking barracuda File:Sphyraena barracuda and caustic in Kona.jpg close by (not a good combination with blood in the shallow water, and shiny camera in my hand). I was getting back to shore, and then I saw an octopus. Of course I could not have missed on him. It was only second time I saw an octopus in a wild. Octopus did not want his pictures taken. He got under corals, and even after I explained to him that I am going to upload his images to Commons, he refused to get out . So now you know the story. Oppose, if you have to, but please be gentle - he was a very difficult subject.
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is not easily identified in the photo. If it wouldn't have an explanation about the photo, I wouldn't get message it conveys. I am also concerned about technical quality, such as sharpness. The subject seems to be out of focus. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "the subject is not easily identified in the photo". It also calls w:Camouflage, and because it is so hard to see the image should be even more appreciated :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Notning special.Good standard quality. Why for FP? --Karel (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP-material. I understand that the picture is special for its creator, so congratulations on the photo, Mbz1! And the story was good, too. -- Petritap (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IMO it is FP material. It is special to see an octopus in a wild, and not only for me as for the image creator. FP does not have nearly enough underwater images taken in a wild. I am glad you liked the story :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support An octopus taken in "the wild", that is featurable to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Switzerland - Aletsch Glacier 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2009 at 16:57:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Didier Baertschiger- uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by MadGeographer -- MadGeographer (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MadGeographer (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky is noisy. Sharpness problems as well. -- JovanCormac 17:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per noise concerns regarding the sky. Tiptoety ^talk 23:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seoul-Gyeongbokgung-The re-enactment of Sejong the Great's enthronement-03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 16:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by David McNally, USAG-Yongsan - uploaded and nominated by Caspian blue 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Caspian blue 16:12, 7 October 2♦009 (UTC)
Oversaturated -- JovanCormac 17:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise, saturation. -- H005 17:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young hedgehog.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2009 at 04:39:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ok, it's not another bird, but it will grow up to like eating bird eggs if it can ever find any. Young and cute, and innocent enough to be out in broad daylight. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tony Wills (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad quality, photos of same subject with better quality have been declined. —kallerna™ 19:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Juvenile_Erinaceus_europaeus_kallerna.JPG, Siilipentu_kallerna.JPG, Erinaceus_europaeus_3.JPG got declined, but perhaps the composition here is better? --Tony Wills (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I absolutely agree with Tony Wills. Jacopo Werther (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Im sorry but the composition is not there for me. Too centered and not enough space around. There is also the distracting grass in the foreground, especially the out-of-focus one spoils it for me. And the cute little nose is not fully shown. --Korall (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is pushing his way through the grass, and snuffling long the ground - I like to see something happening in my photos rather than simple profile shots etc - I'm not sure whether I'd remove the grass even if I could :-). Again I wasn't aiming for centred, but to get the eye near an intersection when divided into thirds (see image note lines), perhaps your eye is more naturally drawn to the cute nose? --Tony Wills (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lacks crispyness and the colours in the background look washed out. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 06:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, even if just for its cuteness Airwolf (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree this is a better picture than those you mentioned in your reply to kallerna, but still I don't consider this to be FP-material. -- Petritap (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, acceptable technical elements, cute pose, would make a nice FP. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Petritap.--Paris 16 (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Kallerna. --Karel (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the centered composition or the distance from the subject, but the grass in front is annoying. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad but no wow. MadGeographer (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Deserves FP as the picture is just perfect and besides, it's cute! Ter890 (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't agree with Kallerna, but i vote oppose cause of grass in front of subject D kuba (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dust storm in Black Rock Desert11.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 21:17:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The upper blue and the lower red rims of the rising sun is not CA, but a natural phenomenon
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very interesting. However I think that the two bright spots on the front shadow should be removed. Yann (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the spots and tried to upload the file over the old one and here's what I got: "A file with this name exists already in the shared file repository. If you still want to upload your file, please go back and use a new name. File:$1 $1" Does somebody know what in the world it means? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The devs were updating the software of the whole cluster at the time of your upload. That probably explains this. Yann (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried again a minute ago and got the same message. Should I report the problem, and if, yes, where? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support I like it, but I think it should be tilted. →Diti the penguin — 16:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What side and how many degrees?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counterclockwise and between 2.7 and 3.0 degrees. Usually, people don't like landscape photography with the horizon tilted; it is a matter of culture, and in France, photos look “better” with this small correction. By respect for your work, I don't want to reupload a new version over your current photo. →Diti the penguin — 18:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Diti. It still does not let me to upload a new file over the old one. So I'll wait until the problem resolved.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, featured[edit]

Removed the spots and rotated (Still cannot write over the old file, so here's the new one)

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I made a mistake when I said for how much degrees it had to be rotated… Diti the penguin — 09:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the atmostphere here. Yann (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful --151.13.54.87 16:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome atmosphere! Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much tilted. Please make the horizon horizontal.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Support after tilt fixed.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you know that I cannot upload a new version over the old one now (I saw your post at Village Pump), and I do not think I'd like to create yet another alternative. Opposing the image for an easy to correct tilt...Oh well...--Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing the vote! I am not sure, when I will be able to upload a new version over the old one. I tried again a few minutes ago, but it still does not work.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Well, this alternative looks even more tilted to me. Is that on purpose? Also there is a blue stripe in the upper right corner, which doesn't seem to belong there. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 14:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I please ask you, if before you oppose an image you bother to read prior comments, about the tilt I mean? I am not sure what "blue stripe" you are talking about. I see none, but even, it were there it would have been easy enough to fix, so IMO it is not a good reason to oppose the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the preceding comments and I was very surprised to see the second version having a stronger tilt than the original one (I assume the mast and the flag in the background should be vertical). The blue stripe (actually more like a triangle) I meant is in the upper right corner and maybe a result from tilting. As to my oppose: I am absolutely willing to revise my vote if a picture has been altered. But I'd like to see that version before. In many cases tilting changes the proportions of the images, because it has to be cropped. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 15:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see the blue thing now. Sorry about that. It is from the tilt. When I asked if you read prior comments, I meant if you saw that I cannot upload a new image over the old one because of a bug in the system, and I would not like to upload a new version as a new file because it will create an extra work for our busy admins to delete all my versions later on. This bug was present for 2 days already, and I am not sure how long else it will be there. I thought about withdrawing the nomination, and nominating it later, when the bug is fixed, but few people have voted already, and it will be not fair to them. IMO the best way to proceed now is to ask the reviewer do not close the nomination until a new fixed version of the file is uploaded.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info I uploaded a new version. I hope it is OK now. If it is not, please tell me what should be done. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support Thanks for fixing the tilt. Very fascinating scene, although technically not perfect IMO. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 18:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Diti the penguin — 17:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2, not featured[edit]

Comment I think this is more like the tilt Diti was asking for. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover. I am very glad to see you back here! The tilt that Diti talked about is maybe fixed now, but the bright spots Yann complained about are back I am afraid :(--Mbz1 (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never left. If anything, it's me who should be welcoming you back. I'll see what I can do about those spots. Remind me to link you to some interesting pictures later. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant I have not seen you nominating images on FP for some time. :) I did look at your "Possible FP Candidates". You have some very interesting images there.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy at work; Wiki has had to take a back seat. Hopefully I'll be around more now. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The voting period for this candidate is over, but the FPCBot is leaving this for manual investigation due to use of multiple images. Closing this candidate needs to be done using the manual instructions.

/FPCBot (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dresden-Zwinger-Wallpavillion-gp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2009 at 20:27:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wallpavilion in Zwinger Dresden; Germany

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kolossos -- Kolossos (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kolossos (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality at high resolution. I even like the people on the left. -- JovanCormac 07:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with JovanCormac. Es ist ausgezeichnet -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great technical quality, misfortune timing. I would have waited the people on the left to leave. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the technical quality is great, but otherwise, this is a dull picture. The composition is poor, the shadows are too harsh, and there are people in the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extra, good image, but not for FP. No wow. --Karel (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe a Quality Image or Valued Image? -- Petritap (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture. It has WOW for me! --NormanB (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality. MadGeographer (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Equus asinus Kadzidłowo 002.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 20:04:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Lilly M - nominated by Airwolf (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice--Muhammad (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute and beautiful. Yann (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - really nice --Pudelek (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support You can see the bond between them! Ter890 (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Estrilda (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

file:MurexPectenGlobal.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2009 at 10:42:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Murex pecten - Front and side face from the same specimen - Muricidae - 15cm

Info created by Didier Descouens - uploaded by archaeodontosaurus - nominated by archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Somehow reminds me of File:Haeckel Prosobranchia.jpg. I love Kunstformen der Natur. -- JovanCormac 11:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy - poor quality for studioshot. —kallerna™ 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work! Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is appealing, but I agree with kallerna. Also DOF could be larger. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 06:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see the quality issues kallerna does, and I think the focus and depth of field are fine. ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, your idea for this composition is good, but the space between the objects is imo much too small and the picture is too noisy. -- Ra'ike T C 20:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the the spacing as Ra'ike.--Estrilda (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Clifton Beach 5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 06:30:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A few kilometres away (other end of the beach) as last thing from here. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the one that gets my vote. Very atmospheric. -- JovanCormac 10:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition, and the technique adds interest to what might otherwise be a fairly ordinary scene (but I think long exposure water will become the new sunset image ;-), also I expect that Jovan will have it up for delisting in a year or so because of the low resolution :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I always enjoy the exposure with pictures like this. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good indeed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Evalowyn (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. MadGeographer (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! I'd love to have a large print of this for my flat. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 18:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportLookatthis (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good! --Pudelek (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice One! Ter890 (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Javier ME (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This will have my vote for POTY. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful --Phyrexian (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good qualty is exelent --Elberth 00001939 (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support yeeaaa --.snoopy. 11:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Estrilda (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral atmosphere of this shot is great, water-haze also, but because of the extreme exposure time the cliff is unsharp --Leafnode 07:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gallotia galloti juvenile.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2009 at 14:19:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by El fosilmaníaco
Support -- El fosilmaníaco (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Main subject too small. —kallerna™ 14:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per kallerna; also sharpness problems. -- JovanCormac 10:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per JovanCormac - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louis Armstrong2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2009 at 13:10:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Herman Hiller - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Airwolf (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I said I wanted more historic(al) pictures, so here's one. I believe it to be one of the most interesting pictures of Armstrong in general, and the high quality adds a lot to the value which is very high itself. Airwolf (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scary! :D —kallerna™ 15:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex:D (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. -- JovanCormac 10:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mondalor (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Worth a thousand words Ter890 (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Javier ME (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is a restored image. The unrestored version is File:Louis Armstrong.jpg. Durova (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:NZ North Island Robin-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2009 at 21:46:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Still trying to rectify the low number of bird FP candidates at the moment :-). A North Island Robin (unrelated to European robins), that usually inhabit the forest necessitating the use of a flash, is here, unusually, photographed in sunlight on the edge of the forest where some trees have been trimmed. Showing true colours and good detail including the fine whiskers around the beak. The leg bands (rings) identify this bird as part of the first generation of birds reintroduced to this part of the country in a restoration project, and help monitor the success of the reintroduction.--Tony Wills (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tony Wills (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but only if you add the camera location :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For privacy reasons I usually don't want to tell the world where I was at an exact date and time, but I will satisfy your interest in the exact location of a somewhat territorial bird :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion geocoding things doesn't give anything away privacy wise, beyond perhaps that you live in a certain part of New Zealand (so long as you don't start geocoding the stuff in your garden). I'd say giving out your real name reveals much more. The geocoding does add value and it is cool to look at a map with a bunch of images popping up. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Noodle snacks (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 04:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks blue to me. Colour balance adjustments? —kallerna™ 19:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Much better now. IMO it isn't still good enough to be FP. Check and compare to these. Sorry, the composition just isn't stunning enough. —kallerna™ 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the white balance was out and made the wing and back feathers too blue, now fixed. Sorry that I couldn't stun you though :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree that geocoding is a good idea and is to be encouraged. If this were a very rare bird which poachers might go after then perhaps not... but in general, yes, please. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, difficult shot (since flash usually needed), technical elements acceptable to me. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This image looks good for me. Mondalor (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support It's cute! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ter890 (talk • contribs)
Support --Javier ME (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carassius gibelio male head 2009 G1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2009 at 16:06:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Head of a male Prussian carp with a round scar from an old injury.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose informative, but no wow --ianaré (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, light, nothing astounding --Leafnode 06:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cincinnati-roebling-suspension-bridge.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2009 at 20:33:49

Info one more image promoted in 2005 that is of lower quality than needed for the fp status, it is blurry and grainy. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Avala (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Poor quality. —kallerna™ 19:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator. -- JovanCormac 09:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator. --Relic38 (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elysette Namur nuit 2005-03-19.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2009 at 20:26:30

Info another image promoted in 2005 that is of lower quality (grainy) than what we would consider promoting today. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Avala (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Poor quality. —kallerna™ 19:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator. -- JovanCormac 09:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Grainy, plus blown highlights. --Relic38 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss Schoenbrunn Gloriette DSC02028.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2009 at 20:17:41

Info I don't think that this image, promoted in 2005, fits the high criteria anymore. The resolution and quality standards have evolved. (Original nomination)

Delist -- Avala (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delist --Tony Wills (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you open the image in full resolution? You would see how unsharp it is, you can't read the letters on the building, you can see pixelization of the water not to mention fringe.--Avala (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For Tony Wills. Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Poor quality. —kallerna™ 19:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Poor quality at full resolution. -- JovanCormac 09:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per JC. --Relic38 (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as JC. Lycaon (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Back-scattering crepuscular rays panorama 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2009 at 18:29:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Infoeverything by Mbz1

Comment I guess I have some explaining to do why I created an individual nomination for a similar image to the above nomination. Here's why:
At first I did not want to do it, but then I thought that we have so many FP of the same (not even similar, but the same) insects and birds, that maybe it is OK to have those two images of a very rare phenomenon. It is OK with me, if only one is promoted, but honestly I'm dying to find out which one will win more votes on POTY, if they both are promoted (It was my main reason for creating individual nomination). I believe the one that gets less votes on POTY could be delisted after the competition is over. I understand that you could disagree with me, so please feel absolutely free to change your votes on any of the two nominations. Thank you, and sorry for the confusion.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow²! Jacopo Werther (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop on bottom. The other one is better. -- JovanCormac 07:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support They are different enough that IMO both can be featured -Muhammad (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Far prefer this one. The solitary tree in the near middle is the perfect element. Great picture! Maedin\^talk 12:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really prefer this one, although I agree that the bottom crop is not perfect. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 16:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe not perfect, but a striking photo of transient phenomena :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I said in QI, this is a FP! --DPC (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same as above, although it looks there are two differents sources of light on that one Benh (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the light is the same the Sun, but it is just under a slightly different angle.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Korall (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Branta leucopsis Djurgarden.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2009 at 10:53:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Branta leucopsis created by Korall - uploaded by Korall - nominated by Korall -- Korall (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Cute, but nothing special Ter890 (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --ianaré (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caiman crocodylus 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2009 at 00:21:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp and grainy. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No where near FP standards. Sorry, Tiptoety ^talk 04:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks much better on the full res. You can see the movement of the caiman, when it jumps into the water. I guess this is hard to catch cause these creatures move fast. --Lošmi (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lošmi said it; you have to look at it in full to appreciate it. The expression on the face, that predatory look as the Caiman enters its domain is frightening... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality and in my opinion composition could be improved dramatically. Flying Freddy (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose so where's the caiman? ;) Unsharp; main subject barely visible. --Leafnode 07:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others opponents. --Karel (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fomes fomentarius inside 2009 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2009 at 12:28:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Tinder fungus (Fomes fomentarius) inside view.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great quality! --Aqwis (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others --Korall (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question EXIF-data missing... How was this made? —kallerna™ 19:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting image. Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really very intresting --Phyrexian (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Granatäpfel.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2009 at 09:33:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Joergens.mi - uploaded by Joergens.mi - nominated by Ra'ike -- Ra'ike T C 09:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ra'ike T C 09:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Pity a flash was used, and a plastic dish as a backdrop. Compare the nice, natural colors and composition in File:Pomegranate02 edit.jpg (though that one has quality problems). -- JovanCormac 10:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too crude and harsh to be a FP, I think. Still an informative picture, though. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose due to visible flash and odd white balance -- H005 17:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Harsh flash, plus there are better similar FPs. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - lighting --Leafnode 07:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunflower from Silesia2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2009 at 08:10:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only recently we Featured File:Sunflower sky backdrop.jpg, which has better quality (image noise!) and arguably a better composition as well. -- JovanCormac 10:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- noise? I don't see... --Pudelek (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look around the bottom right petals at full resolution. It's quite visible, actually. -- JovanCormac 11:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - if this picture was so small as this picture File:Sunflower sky backdrop.jpgthat would not be noise, but this is larger and more detailed --Pudelek (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The noise is insignificant, but there are noticeable editing errors around the petals where the other bits of the plant have been cloned out. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fine photo but nothing special. Multimotyl (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset on Xichong.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2009 at 04:15:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Clestur - uploaded by Clestur - nominated by Clestur -- Clestur (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Clestur (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nothing special. —kallerna™ 09:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop and quality are disappointing. -- JovanCormac 10:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Himalayas.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2009 at 11:08:07

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): 0.6 Megapixels is a ridiculous resolution for a landscape photo. Ten times that would be on the low side for such a shot.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 11:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for special value, space view of Mount Everest. As for the resolution, you can find a full resolution file here it just needs to be uploaded. --Avala (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the worst argument I've ever seen. This should be kept because a better file exists??? On the contrary! This should be delisted, and the superior file promoted in its stead! -- JovanCormac 15:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm it is the same image...--Avala (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, done. Nothing to see here anymore. --Dschwen (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

Thank you, Daniel! One less low-res image to worry about (though the quality of the higher-res version is far from perfect, but that's something for another day). -- JovanCormac 15:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:VWGolf6.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2009 at 18:38:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michel de Vries - uploaded by Christian Giersing - nominated by Kozuch -- Kozuch (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kozuch (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see professional advertising pictures here. -- JovanCormac 18:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, unconvincing composition. Airwolf (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice panned picture. --Muhammad (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Looks alright. Tiptoety ^talk 04:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I am not comfortable to see too many PR photos published here and promoting every one as FP is also ridiculous, since the superior quality of such professionally taken and elaborately doctored pictures is beyond question. Like the inner view below, this image is also a composition and should be marked as retouched picture / composition. But after that I would support, since this time it is not completely unnecessary, to replace the background. --Curnen (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this left standing here? It is plain nonsense. --Dschwen (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No kidding. Also saying that not too many professional pictures should be promoted is bull. We should be happy that the project attracts professional contributors, and honor their work according to its quality. FP is not a photography contest for amateurs, it's a collection of our best pictures, and this is certainly one of them. -- JovanCormac 13:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, wouldn't it be great if we could just strike out factually wrong arguments, and all the per curnen votes of people who got fooled? Unfortunately most of the voters seem to be drive-by voters, not giving a crap about what happens to the nomination after they voted. Too bad. --Dschwen (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Sorry, Dschwen, but regardless of your merit here, I think your current behavior is a little dishonorable. First of all, you a free to explain to me, why certain light effects I already pointed out in the discussion with Niabot are well explainable assuming a single shot. Please do this - but unless somebody resolved all doubt, I think my opinion is as eligible as yours. Secondly I like to remind you, that the photo below has obviously been composed out of multiple shots, so I believe, some doubt is also legitimate here. Thirdly, photos in general just can't be judged solely by factual criteria - not even the level of image noise, that is still acceptable. But if you think for example of composition, there simply is no right or wrong. You will probably agree that some amazing pictures are superior, BECAUSE all usual rules of composition have been broken. "I like it" and "I don't like it" are equally wrong or right, because its the individual reception. The last thing: If I got this right, you seriously asked for deletion of votes, simply because the come from people with sporadic activity ? I hope, you have been kidding - because if there is one basic principle commonly accepted in in all democratic systems it the equal counting of votes ! --Curnen (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Where are you getting this from: you seriously asked for deletion of votes, simply because the come from people with sporadic activity. This again is complete non-sense! I'm fantasizing about striking factually wrong arguments (which is obviously not going to happen!). The drive-by voting is only an issue because people seldomly come back to react to the debunking of inaccurate statements they based their votes on. So please read a little more carefully before you paraphrase my statements. I'm really not in the mood for a squabble here, but no, your "opinion" is not eligible here. Facts are not a matter of opinion. And not calling a wrong statement wrong is not a matter politeness. In fact pointing out a wrong statement is is not a little dishonorable, it is the opposite! What's dishonorable is stating an opinion like a fact: this image is also a composition, misleading other voters, and essentially destroying an FPC. The photographer already explained the technique used to shoot his images. So you "light effects" statements have the value of a conspiracy theory. --Dschwen (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, in the worst case my conspiracy theory is responsible for four oppose votes, the eight other opposers did name other reasons. But Ter890, H005 and Jacopo Werther all voted here at other candidates after Niabot pointed out, that he is sure, that this is no composition and could have changed their votes, if they wanted. So both positions were present in the discussion and I think nobody got fooled, but only convinced by either side. Therefore I do also not see any responsibility of mine for essentially destroying an FPC - essentially destroying FP for example is, when point'n'shooter pictures have not the ghost of a chance here anymore regardless of the photo itself - but this another topic. But as a conciliatory proposal: I will take a one month break here after this discussion is closed and during this time you may nominate as many pictures as you want, without spanner in the works. --Curnen (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This is somewhat missing the point. I do not want you to take a break, I want you to be careful what you state as "fact" when you vote. --Dschwen (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cant see any PR. Its just a professional picture. (any PR is in your mind) --Niabot (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technically good picture - i just don´t like the composition --Andreas 06 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! —kallerna™ 19:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Andreas. --Karel (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose For Curnen's argument. Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Curnen perfectly summarized my thoughts when I saw this nomination. -- H005 22:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is no composition! What he used (we talked with him on german wikipedia [4]) was a camera system like this one [5] which is pretty common for such photographs. No need for a composition, just move the car and the camera at once and have the men inside the car sit calm, while you take a shot over alike 15 Seconds. --Niabot (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No composition? The arrangment of the car on the road shouldn´t be "randomly", so there must be a composition in those pictures. This doesn´t mean that those advertising pictures are done with a little help from photoshop ;) --Andreas 06 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Like the inner view below, this image is also a composition and should be marked as retouched picture / composition." You completly misunderstood. --Niabot (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, now I got the point --Andreas 06 (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you are talking about two different things here. Niabot is referring to the fact that the image is not composed of two or more separate shots, whereas Andreas is talking about the composition as in "the use of space within a photograph", ie. the visual arrangement of elements within the image. -- Petritap (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep, but I was talking about this being a composition of two separate shots. Although it is well done and not as obvious as in the photo below, I still think it has been composed out of two or more images. This mainly because the reflection of the sun in the VW sign or the warm light on the front of the car tells me, that the car has been lit by the setting sun from the front. But when you look at the building in the background, the strong light there does not really look like a reflection on the glass, but rather like the sun shining through the building from behind ! Even if this would be a reflection, you would expect the reflection beeing blurred by the panning of the camera. I have never ever had a star shaped highlight in a panning shot, also the shadow below the car does not fit, if its really and solely lit by the sun from the front - so I am still convined, that its a composition or has at least a fake highlight. In general: Don't get me wrong! I do appreciate the decision of Michael de Vries, to share his pictures very much and again the quality of this picture is beyond question to me. But I have seen fantastic images fail here, because of some noise or a dust spot or a slight haziness somewhere that unfortunately resulted in scaring off talented photographers. Whereas in this case, some of you seem literally to court de Vries and forget about the usual alertness. --Curnen (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason why the car is moved. It gives smother shadings, softer reflections, much blured shadows since it has the same effect as if you would aply filters, that keep the edges of the car sharp. If you want, i could render you an comparable scene with motion-blur and fixed object-camera-setting, which would show exactly the same behaviour. Keep in mind, that is not the usual setting with a driving car and an motionless environment. It more like this shot on the side. --Niabot (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I'm not an expert so I can't tell whether or not this is a composite image. But to me, it doesn't matter in this case. It's a professionally executed advertising photo and it is obvious to me that some professional techniques were used. It is not a documentary photo portraying, say, some historical event or the characteristics of some species of arthropod. If it were, then I would expect "pure" photography. -- Petritap (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not stunning or unique, seen thousands of such photos.--Avala (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully you can contribute with thousands of "such" photos yourself... Such a BS talked here, that is very sad.--Kozuch (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course - [6] and watch your language.--Avala (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are those pictures really on Commons? -- Petritap (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info {{Retouched picture}} added.--Kozuch (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, but why then remove the tag? The website of a firm that provides such camera-rigs even shows examples of how it this done and pre-retouched images (http://www.move-n-shoot.com/slideshow_e.php?bildnummer=16 for a car example, and many others in the slideshow). The image of the rig needs to be removed. Therefore I think the retouched template should be re-added. My guess is the rig was just to the right of the front left of the car. -84user (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Avala --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would not like to present promotional from Volswagen content on aur main page. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't we supposed to be neutral and judge the photos instead? Diti the penguin — 20:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we present promotional pictures from the US military, so... Yann (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you are right. But I also did not support any promotions of that kind. --Curnen (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I'm sorry, but I can't see anything outstanding in this picture. MartinD (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Curnen's arguement Ter890 (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality image describing the object, regardless it is a commercial product. --Javier ME (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Commercial or not, I really don't like that background --Phyrexian (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 12 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:VWGolf6Int.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2009 at 18:15:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michel de Vries - uploaded by Bilindustrien - nominated by Kozuch -- Kozuch (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kozuch (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image, amazing professional quality. -- JovanCormac 18:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not comfortable to see too many PR photos published here and promoting every one as FP is also ridiculous, since the superior quality of such professionally taken and elaborately doctored pictures is beyond question. Apart from that general thing, in this image, you can clearly see, that the background needlessly has been replaced with some sort of glacier or arctic landscape. You can tell that because of some corrugation e.g. under the mirror or above the central console, where the glass pane usually would begin. Furthermore the satellite navigation device shows the current position of the car close to Montabaur in the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate - which is not known for harsh winters.--Curnen (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Curnen's argument is convincing. If it is a mishmash of multiple unrelated pictures, that should at least be described on the image notes. 99of9 (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Can't see any PR. Its just a professional picture. (any PR is in your mind)~~ Background is obviously faked. Look at the bottom of the side mirror. --Niabot (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby change my vote to Oppose per above. I don't mind doctored photos as long as they are marked as such and above all, as long as the doctoring is done flawlessly. Airwolf (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks quite fake and artificial. Nesnad (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Curnen --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info {{Retouched picture}} template added.--Kozuch (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very nice. That it is retouched seem quite obvious so does not feel like an issue. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose For Curnen's argument. Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Curnen. Maybe we can promote some PR photos but this one isn't close to being the best one, it's not unique and it's full of small issues like the fake background.--Avala (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would not like to present promotional from Volswagen content on aur main page. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We present promotional pictures from the US military, so... Yann (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you are right. But I also did not support any promotions of that kind. --Curnen (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I'm sorry, but this is just a car interior. MartinD (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Nothing special, really.Ter890 (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't care if it's a promotional image, but I really don't like it --Phyrexian (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 12 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hopetoun falls.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2009 at 10:51:31

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Waterfall shots are a dime a dozen these days, and since this one has only 1.3 Mpx, there is no reason to keep it Featured.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 10:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very nice image! --Karel (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep author is still active so perhaps he can upload a bigger version.--Avala (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Damnit, this is making me furious! Would you please vote on the picture at hand, and not on possible higher resolution versions that may surface one day? -- JovanCormac 15:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why make things complicated and go through a delisting and then repromoting the photo process, if we can get things done in one day like with Himalayas photo?--Avala (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jovan, when I'm only a quick msg on a talk page away, it's not hard to ask me for a higher resolution image rather than delist and ask questions later. :-) Diliff (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like I said, I always deal with the pictures at hand. I appreciate that you have uploaded a higher res version, but the one I nominated had low res. To be honest, I try to not look at who took a picture when delisting, for fear that could bias me in some way. In this case, had I seen your name, I probably would have been too intimidated to delist at all... ;-) -- JovanCormac 05:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Uploaded original version at 3072x2048 resolution. Quality is not great by current standards, but I think this still just scrapes through. I think it's a slightly more interesting and aesthetic waterfall image than most. Diliff (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A great image. Also I am more inclined to keep early images using this technique rather than the 'dime a dozen' copy cats :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

Higher resolution version uploaded. Thank you, David! -- JovanCormac 05:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, but the last thing I would want is you to be intimidated away from your opinion! I accept that this is no longer one of my better images. I like the composition though. I'd love to go back and shoot it with a bit more care and attention sometime. :-) I'd be the first to nominate this for delisting if and when I do. Diliff (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Engenhão panorâmica (12-OUT-2009).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2009 at 00:37:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Martins, Tito, uploaded by Martins, Tito, nominated by Martins, Tito (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martins, Tito (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, The image is tilted anticlockwise. -- Ra-smit (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too low resolution for a panorama. -- JovanCormac 09:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: The resolution is below the guideline of 2MP. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunken boat Seward Alaska.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2009 at 05:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by steve lyon - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - boat too dark, noise, CA, pinkish haze on mountains, some artifacts on the bottom part of water reflection/ripples --Leafnode 06:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too dark, funny composition --Multimotyl (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Kosiarz-PL 09:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Phyrexian (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: The obvious errors/artifacts in the water make it very unlikely for this to succeed. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thea.vigintiduopunctata.7231.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 02:41:28

Info Poor lighting, DOF, sharpness and very noisy (Original nomination)
Delist -- Muhammad (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator. -- JovanCormac 09:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Avala (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Petritap (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Lighting is just OK, but DOF and noise not good. --Relic38 (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist looks very strange to me --Korall (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Avala (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Yann (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

File:Bellagio Promontory.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2009 at 22:15:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by RaminusFalcon -- --Raminus (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Raminus (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very beautiful, yet overall foggy (which is part of the mood) and slightly overexposed. Blown sky in the upper right corner, w/ jpeg compression artifacts. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing spectacular here, just a snapshot panorama.--Avala (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2009
Oppose Rather poor quality - overexposed sky, foggy, noise, sharpness just average. /— Preceding unsigned comment added by H005 (talk • contribs)
Oppose hazy --ianaré (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack above --Leafnode 07:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ogi Shirakawa02n3200.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2009 at 14:02:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

x300px|Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go

Info created by 663h - uploaded by 663h - nominated by 663h -- 663h
Info The Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama are one of UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
Support -- 663h
Oppose Washed out colors, image noise, probably overexposed. -- JovanCormac 06:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---donald- (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and beautiful :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice on thumbnail but in full resolution you can see the quality is not good.--Avala (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but have to agree with Jovan and Avala. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite soft. Maedin\^talk 06:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirnu-crop.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 10:08:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kallerna - original upload by Kallerna - cropped and nominated by Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A wider shot of this was earlier nominated for FP, an attractive shot, but it didn't quite grab people. I like this crop as it emphasizes those fragile, pale animals (the riders :-) embedded in the shiny meccano machine :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Tony Wills (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually perferred the original version (more dynamic AFAIC). Pity that didn't get Featured. -- JovanCormac 16:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not a very good composition.--Avala (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fine but I fail to see something special about it. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I entirely agree with JovanCormac here. The original image was really great, I did never understand the opposers. -- H005 17:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition --Phyrexian (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gyps fulvus 1 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 05:29:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, although a careful denoise could make it even better. -- JovanCormac 06:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I want to see the alternative version Featured. -- JovanCormac 05:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support I agree to Jovan Cormac. Also I have the impression the image has a slight blue tint, but maybe it's just the haze in the background. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 16:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support AlexAH (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per NEUROtiker. —kallerna™ 10:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Weak Support~~ Very nice! I agree with JC; a good denoise would definitely strengthen this shot. --Relic38 (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Oppose to Support the alternative. --Relic38 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've removed noise, without loading alternative version. Is it OK now? --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I compared the two versions, and the new one is definitely better, with almost no detail lost in the process. Great job! -- JovanCormac 19:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even better! Still has my support. --Relic38 (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Beaucoup mieux maintenant! Yann (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The alternative below is better. Yann (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks for denoise :) --Luc Viatour (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karel (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. Korall (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version (Removed the blue tint)[edit]

Comment I agree with NEUROtiker, there was a slight blue tint, please compare both versions. ■ MMXX^talk 03:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better, thanks! --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 03:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than original. -- JovanCormac 05:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ne respecte pas les couleurs de la brume de montagne comme moi je l'ai vue --Luc Viatour (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Keeps getting better! --Relic38 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Blue tint is interesting, achieving the effect of fog or just thick layer of air behind the bird. You can feel the air bearing it. Removing the blue tint just places it in emptiness. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Dmitry and Lviatour: are you kidding?! are we voting here for mountain mist or vulture, which one is the subject? what is the real color of bird? is it blue?? ■ MMXX^talk 05:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm voting for the whole composition, of course and as usually :) --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Korall (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Note: this candidate has several alternatives, thus the alternative parameter needs to be specified. /FPCBot (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Gyps fulvus 1 Luc Viatour.jpg

File:Foggy sunset with Brown Pelicans.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2009 at 17:47:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. I might have not had the sun quite as close to the edge though. --Relic38 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wonderful image, but those rocks at the bottom makes me wonder if the composition would not be better without them (or with more of them, if this is a cropped image). If other versions are not up to the task, I'm willing to support this image. --S23678 (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop. —kallerna™ 10:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per kallerna, also dynamic range problems, although some might consider them to have artistic value. -- JovanCormac 11:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dynamic range? I wish I knew what it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dynamic range is the difference (Wikipedia says the ratio) between the strongest and weakest signal of a type, in this case: light. The candidate image (like any other image that shows the sun directly) has an extremely high dynamic range because the brightness of the sun's disc exceeds that of the rock by several orders of magnitude. With traditional photographic techniques it is (as I am sure you're aware) very difficult to photograph a scene with a high dynamic range without one part being overexposed (which is the case here with the sun's surroundings) or underexposed. It is precisely that what HDR (high dynamic range) imaging is for: To create a composite image of a HDR scene that is well-lit in all areas without being overexposed in any one of them. -- JovanCormac 15:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, Jovan. It is interesting that few mitues ago I found out that HDR does not do a good job with the waves.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Kallerna, what crop you did not like so much that it was enough to oppose the image? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there would be more stuff on bottom, I would reconsider my vote. —kallerna™ 19:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted to see my feet? :) --Mbz1 (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! :) —kallerna™ 20:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Korall (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, featured[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much better crop and EV. I'd support if that bright spot next to the bird is removed. As well, the picture is tilted clockwise (didn't saw it on the first ~~edit~~ version). --S23678 (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. What bright spot do you mean the sun? BTW it is not an edit. It is an absolutely different image.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't put a note on this version to point out the bright spot, but it's the bright thing right next to the biggest bird that looks like lens internal reflexion (or is this the moon... I don't know) on the top left. I realised it was not an edit after writting about it... but I forgot to correct that part of my first comment. --S23678 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That bright spot is the sun, and even to earn your support I will not remove my favorite star

--Mbz1 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ I really do like the scene, but to have overexposed fog while the sun is correctly exposed doesn't just doesn't make sense in such a scene, and it's somewhat deceptive for FP, even if digital manipulations are written in the description. It would have been so much easier if it was only from lens internal reflexion...! --S23678 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital manipulations have absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the sun and/or the fog. I have never touched the sun or/and the fog. Digital manipulations meant that I created panorama out of three images manually, and it is clearly specified in the description of the image.For example here is the original image File:Foggy sunset at Land's End.jpg that was never post processed at all. I've chosen that one because it is one of the best to illustrate what it really is. You see here that the sun is exposed just right, but look at the fog and even at the w:sun glitter! Their brightness compare to the "right" sun only shows that the density of the fog was different, and not "digital manipulations". To wish that it were not the Sun, but a lens reflection is very strange to say the least

. That oppose reason will get the first place in my collection of oppose reasons, and it is even better than get the nominated image promoted to FP status

--Mbz1 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I still can't understand how the sun can be less exposed than the fog through logic, really, but faced with the evidence of the other picture you showed, I can only discover my ignorance on this subject... --S23678 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like both versions, and this one shows an interesting phenomenon of cloud/fog density. --Relic38 (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, also, Mbz1, my nick is "Aqwis" with a Q. ;) --Aqwis (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I've changed your name in purpose after you opposed my possible picture of the year. It was my retaliation to you.) I am sorry, I did. Please accept my apology --Mbz1 (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) --Aqwis (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Have you considered changing your name? :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it was only me, who did.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Korall (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Foggy_sunset_with_brown_pelicans_2.jpg

File:Bride and groom on the ruins of sutro bath.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2009 at 14:04:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by mbz1 - uploaded by mbz1 - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG support. Amazing picture. This is the first candidate I've seen this year that I think has what it takes to become Picture of the Year (well, this and File:Operation Crossroads Baker Edit.jpg). Unless something even more amazing comes along, this will likely get my vote. -- JovanCormac 17:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Had you told me yesterday that today, I would be retracting my vote of support for this picture, I would have called you insane. But amazingly enough, Mila has submitted a version that's even better. -- JovanCormac 05:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The one below is slightly better. Yann (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is that line along the outline of the rock on the left side? --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Babyaministraor (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, nondescript ruins, centered composition, bride and groom too small in the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Aqwis, you cannot oppose my picture of the year

, but seriously IMO the size of the bride and groom is about right. You cannot see their faces anyway, so IMO the size is good enough to see what there is to see, and there is something really interesting to see - the wind!--Mbz1 (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you cannot see either of their faces is one of the things that makes the picture so very amazing IMO. -- JovanCormac 05:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry to oppose your "picture of the century" but I feel much the same as Aqwis. -- Petritap (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better than above. Yann (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I don't know about POTY. We'll have to wait and see. --Relic38 (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unreal! How are you doing that, Mila? This version is indeed even more incredible then the one above. -- JovanCormac 05:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no magic here. After Agwis complained about centered composition, I made a different crop from the original image.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Touching, poignant and emotional. A real winner. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the composition of this version is a lot better than that of the original, but I still can't really see "what the fuzz is all about". However, I'm sure this will pass, so congratulations in advance. ;) --Aqwis (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to tell you a story about taking of this image (not all the images have a story to tell, but this one does), which might soften your heart :) or might not :(. I was taking images of w:Sutro Baths (a rather big place), when I've noticed the bride and groom File:Bride and groom on the ruins of sutro bath 0.jpg. As you could see from the image the bride was desperately behind the rock :(. I waited for few more minutes for her to come out, but instead the groom also got behind the rock :( :(. So, I picked up my tripod and run to a different place. It is not a good place to run. I'm lucky I did not breake anything :). Then I took the nominated image, and just two minutes later they have left the scene File:Bride and groom on the ruins of sutro bath 2.jpg. So I hope now you see how special that image is

--Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a true chance shot... that makes me respect it even more. I'd have thought it was planned to at least some degree, like you being a photographer at that specific wedding or so. No surprise those two chose to kiss at that spot though - it looks like one of the most romantic places in the state! -- JovanCormac 19:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a pure chance. I was there the day before too, and took this panorama File:Sutro bath11.jpg. Then I decided to try to do a better job from a slightly different spot and try it for FP, but when bride-groom opportunity came about, I've changed my plans. After all I always could take panorama, but I could not have missed that kiss

--Mbz1 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support a lovely image & well captured --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition just doesn't do it for me. Sorry. Flying Freddy (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG support. Amazing picture. This is the first candidate I've seen this year that I think has what it takes to become Picture of the Year. And it has great Composition Mr. Dantes 21:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Looks artifficial. Composition just for effect. And result - so, so. --Karel (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read prior comments? There's nothing artifficial in this image?--Mbz1 (talk)

Support But how do you contact them to give them a copy :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope somebody from their friends will see it on Commons, and let them know. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing very special in this picture IMO. But the lighting is good though. :) -- Petritap (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo. How many couples have a wedding shot this good? Pity they don't have it - perhaps one day they'll see it featured! --99of9 (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Note: this candidate has several alternatives, thus the alternative parameter needs to be specified. /FPCBot (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

The chosen alternative is: File:Bride_and_groom_at_the_ruins_of_Sutro_Bath_1.jpg

File:Captain Edward Augustus Inglefield - National Maritime Museum - Inuit man with a kayak (pd)-Edit2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2009 at 23:25:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Captain Edward Augustus Inglefield (1853) - uploaded by Dmitry Rozhkov, restored by Mmxx - nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent restoration by Mmxx. Рhoto from Inglefields expedition (1853). -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that the restoration is excellent given what was there to work with, but the picture (as well as the original) shows substantial JPEG compression artifacts (see annotation), which is quite problematic with a historic image. We should wait for a better scan to surface. -- JovanCormac 07:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jovan. —kallerna™ 09:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Support the version below. Yann (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version[edit]

Comment Here it is a new version, I tried to reduce JPEG artifacts, please compare both versions. ■ MMXX^talk 16:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the quality issues can be forgiven in this case. -- Petritap (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't forget to link the original to all the edits. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Back-scattering crepuscular rays.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2009 at 23:32:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mila Zinkova - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by -- NormanB (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NormanB (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic view --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 11:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very beautiful scenery. However, I have a few comments: there appears to be some lines / abrupt transitions in the upper part of the trees (similar to the ones which were in the bride/groom picture below). Also a tiny bit of colour noise reduction would improve the quality IMO. And last: the crop on the sides is a bit tight for my taste. Is there some image material left, which you cut away? --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to correct some lines (stitching errors) and I removed some noise. The image was not cropped It is the way it was taken. The thing is that I was trying to do panorama with Golden Gate Bridge like this File:Crepuscular Rays Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco.jpg and I did not want to reduce my zoom because the bridge was far away. Now I know I should have. If I see it ever again I'll try to do a better job. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The transition still is too obvious for my taste, but the noise is much better! --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 16:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think promoting one picture is enough and I like the other one better. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, and I would have agreed with you, but on the other hand we have so many FP of the same (not even similar, but the same) insects and birds, that I thought it is OK to have those two images of a very rare phenomenon. It is OK with me, if only one is promoted, but honestly I'm dying to find out which one will win more votes on POTY if they both are promoted (It was my main reason for creating individual nomination). I believe the one that gets less votes on POTY could be delisted after the competition is over.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fantastic view --Böhringer (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was thinking to nominate it. ;o) Yann (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support though i am not 100% convinced by the crop/composition....still a nice photo. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)-[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great atmosphere. -- JovanCormac 07:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly impressive. Airwolf (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hadn't wandered here for a long time, nice to see you haven't lost the "crepuscular rays" touch :) Benh (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~==== Alternative ====~~

Here's a panorama of two trees (not the one I nominated on QI, slightly different). I myself cannot say which one I like the best the first one of this alternative, so it is for you to decide. (I would not mind if both are promoted)

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Wow²! Jacopo Werther (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bad crop on bottom. The other one is better. -- JovanCormac 07:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support They are different enough that IMO both can be featured -Muhammad (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Far prefer this one. The solitary tree in the near middle is the perfect element. Great picture! Maedin\^talk 12:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I really prefer this one, although I agree that the bottom crop is not perfect. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 16:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created an individual nomination down bellow per your comments and votes. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Back-scattering crepuscular rays.jpg

Image:Bush-cricket 02 (MK).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2009 at 04:12:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Leviathan (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Leviathan (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my view, the dark green spot in the upper right corner is not needed. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The dark green spot is a leaf of the bush, at this angle it wasn´t avoidable and I don´t want to clon it out. BG Leviathan (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? IMO, this bush sheet does not contain any additional information for a photo. Only a little distracting. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It adds information about the environment, that the insect was in a living place. Diti the penguin — 08:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems underexposed, I suggest you bring the white point way back. Flying Freddy (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes maybe its a little to dark but ther was very difficult lightning (completly in shadow) when I shot this photo. I also tried it not so dark, with longer exposure time but it wasn`t so nice, in fact the reflections on the body where much more and the background was not really nice... And, don´t forget, from time to time these little beasts are moving a little bit... BG Leviathan (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Imo the exposure can be fixed in photoshop, would you permit me to upload an edit? Still don't think the quality is there, maybe VP but not FP for me. Flying Freddy (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Yeah thats right, I could trie to fix it with Photoshop, I´ll do it today and then I will upload a little lighter version... BG 192.77.114.200 03:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)~~ I´m so sorry but it looks like reading too fast so early at the morning isn´t so good for me! Of course you can upload an edit! Sorry for this missunderstanding! BG Leviathan (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like to see an edit, a brightened version, because I think it could improve this. But I also think this is ok as it is. Maedin\^talk 12:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1[edit]

Comment Sorry for the break, but I was a little busy the last days! Now I've edited the picture and upload an alternative version. Little more Gamma and adjusted the white point. Now you, I'm really interested wich one you like more. BG Leviathan (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: Image:Bush-cricket 02 (MK).JPG

File:Carpilius convexus is consuming Heterocentrotus trigonarius in Hawaii 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2009 at 18:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by user:mbz1-- Mbz1 (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is an underwater image taken in the wild.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In favor of the alternative version, which is more "intense". -- JovanCormac 07:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Korall (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wow! This photo excellent showing attack by crab to a sea urchin. -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture, the green think on the left corner is a bit unattractive but the whole picture is really good! BG Leviathan (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another nice shot where the Wow is present. Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and highly educational! --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now if we had a video of the crab eating that sea urchin, that would be awesome... -- JovanCormac 17:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took few dozens images of the scene, almost as good as a video

. I copied them to my hard drive, but I have never backed them up. As a matter of fact I had many, many quite unique images, that were not backed up. Few months later something happened to my computer, and I did a full system recovery with hard drive formatting

. Then I used a program that was able to recover very few of the hundreds images I lost. That's why this crab image is a very special for me.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backup is for the feebles. Real men just upload their stuff on the Net. ;o) Linus Torvarlds

Yeah, right, except the "real man" was blocked at the time as usual :( :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the alternative version. Sorry about the loss of backups. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Korall (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

The chosen alternative is: File:Carpilius convexus is consuming Heterocentrotus trigonarius in Hawaii.jpg

File:Clifton Beach 4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 06:33:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it so much. Jacopo Werther (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this too :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer version 5, this one looks too purple. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna™ 15:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pudelek (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The other one is much better. --Estrilda (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hafeziyeh 0457.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2009 at 23:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mardetanha - uploaded by Mardetanha - nominated by Ladsgroup -- Amir (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too low quality, big noise. And composition with humans is not Ok. No chance of promotion, sorry

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.

-- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2008 Yongsan Fall Festival-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 16:05:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by David McNally, USAG-Yongsan - uploaded and nominated by Caspian blue 16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Caspian blue 16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Bad crop at right and top. Airwolf (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic picture, interesting expression on her face. The crop, while tight, actually enhances the picture IMO. -- JovanCormac 17:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is that white transparent band arcing across the picture ?` /Daniel78 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a strip made of Hanji (Korean paper), attached at the top of the hat called "sangmo". (see Namsadang#Sangmo nori)--Caspian blue 22:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support She really captures my attention. - Korall (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice look, but the crop could be better. Yann (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 10:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support It is as good as it is. Good job! Ter890 (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop is great! -- H005 17:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this picture --Phyrexian (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Estrilda (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Airbus 320-200 Wizz Air 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2009 at 13:13:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow, Maciej Hypś, Konflikty.pl - uploaded by Airwolf - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice colors, but overall quality leaves to be desired. -- JovanCormac 10:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture. But please remove the tiny dark spot in the sky behind the tail. -- MJJR (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info It will be done shortly. My usual photoeditor will take care of this Airwolf (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Removed a few tiny dark spots, Maedin\^talk 10:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good QI, but not special enough for FP. -- H005 17:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per H005. —kallerna™ 12:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not special enough? Could you develop your opinion? D kuba (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Expand, a nie develop, ewentualnie elaborate. Develop to można program komputerowy :) Airwolf (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imperfect English is more standard than exception here, isn't it? And "expand" doesn't fit here either IMHO, "elaborate on" is ok. I even think that "develop" isn't all that bad here. :-)

About the original question: It's just a landing airplane before a plain grey sky, like many thousands of airplanes that land each day, and maybe apart from the vivid colours the aircraft is painted in, there's nothing that makes this photo stand out of the crowd of hundreds of other photos of this kind. If there was a very special light or a particularly interesting background or anything like that, but I can't se any of this, sorry. -- H005 20:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very very nice --Phyrexian (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But for the nice colors, it looks just like an everyday plane. --Estrilda (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info To be honest, this is an everyday plane Airwolf (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anna Kim Wien2008.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 00:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tsui - uploaded by Tsui - nominated by Tsui (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tsui (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good quality, but not enough wow! for FP. -- H005 17:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I very very like this picture --Phyrexian (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Estrilda (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:CN Tower Turmkorb-Modell-blau.png, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2009 at 12:00:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Niabot - uploaded by Niabot - nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (self nomination) -- Niabot (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! -- H005 13:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work! Jacopo Werther (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The texture on the main tower seem a bit odd, like a horizontal texture extended vertically creating long lines extending all the way down. Looks like an error to me. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was more or less intentional. It automaticaly creates the right stripes at the cuts and gives the right feeling for the direction of the concrete. --Niabot (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. -- JovanCormac 06:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work --Phyrexian (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel78 Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:ComputerHotline - Papilionidae sp. (by) (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2009 at 17:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Name : Papilio cresphontes. Created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why do you keep reverting the bots closing of this ? (according to the log this candidate failed already on the 7 of September due to the rule of the fifth day ) /Daniel78 (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably shud be renominated. I think the nom got messed up somehow and was not displayed during its run --Muhammad (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dragonfly - 蜻蛉(トンボ).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2009 at 08:14:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by TANAKA_Juuyoh - uploaded by Raeky - nominated by Raeky -- — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but not identified and the quality is not amazing. I miss details like fore example the structure of the compound eye. I like the colour of the background, though. -- Korall (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At first glance the picture looks really great. But that pixelation... it just ruins it for me. -- Petritap (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like Korall --Phyrexian (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Equus asinus Kadzidłowo 001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2009 at 10:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Lilly M - nominated by Airwolf (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Remember the cute little hedgehog? Now here's something twice as cute. Just look at the intelligent yet disregarding way he's observing us.
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its cute! Ter890 (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautyful --Phyrexian (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Kosiarz-PL 14:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a spectacular composition. I like the other one much better. --Estrilda (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor composition : too centered --ianaré (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --.ds m. 18:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FA-18E Super Hornet landing on USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) - 080423-N-7883G-107.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 22:36:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kyle D. Gahlau - uploaded by Nova13 - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to the PD status of the US military, their photos are a dime a dozen here on Commons. But this one, I think, has an amazing composition, and gives you a wonderful view of an event few people have seen - a carrier landing. In my view, this forgives the slight underexposure of the bottom of the aircraft.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The composition is amazing indeed, but the crop is a little tight on the left and noise as well as sharpness could be better. The fact that the aircraft is performing a carrier landing is not obvious to the naked eye. -- JovanCormac 06:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is. You just need to note that it has its arresting hook lowered. Airwolf (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I actually meant is "to the untrained eye". For an aviation expert like yourself it may be blatantly obvious, but everyone else will just see a bit of metal sticking out of the tail ;-) -- JovanCormac 09:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good thing it's mentioned in the title then. :D Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Airwolf (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality to NASA. Too much contrast. —kallerna™ 15:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean 'US Air Force', Kallerna. The F/A-18s NASA operates are R&D variants (HARV and X-53) and can't land on carriers... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops.. Sorry. But I think that you know what I mean. —kallerna™ 09:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Kallerna. Yann (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna--Adi (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elberth 00001939 (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Kallerna. --Estrilda (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hoher Kasten.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 19:13:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Laurent Saint Jean - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by MadGeographer -- MadGeographer (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MadGeographer (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed or too much lying in the shadow, and the wow! factor is limited. -- H005 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it does indeed seem to be underexposed. --Aqwis (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not really underexposed, though the dynamic range is of course extreme, so dark shadows are to be expected if nothing is to be blown. I like the composition. -- JovanCormac 06:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per H005 --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, yep, underexposed. --Dschwen (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 10:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per all those who opposed Ter890 (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ichijoji Kasai13bs4272.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2009 at 13:55:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by 663h (talk) - uploaded by 663h (talk) - nominated by 663h (talk) -- 663h (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Pagoda of Ichijoji Buddhist temple (Japan's national treasure). This architecture in wayō (和様, "Japanese") that is Japanese original design. It was built in 1171.
Support -- 663h (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Severe chromatic aberration around the branch hanging into the picture from above. -- JovanCormac 10:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect but I like it --Phyrexian (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JovanCormac. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others opponents. --Karel (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jungle Palace Hanover with Aix galericulata.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2009 at 16:18:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW. Amazing picture. -- JovanCormac 17:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support W O W! Rastrojo _(D•ES) 22:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not particularly a fan of the composition. The main subject is the duck, isn't it? Diti the penguin — 23:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's whatever you want it to be... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you remove the duck from the photo, does it remain interesting? I don't think so. Diti the penguin — 17:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --Phyrexian (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the flie is exelent --Elberth 00001939 (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light playing on the water is spectacular. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Strongly Support Per all who have supported Ter890 (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very striking image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good colors & composition --ianaré (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! (Personaly, if it was my picture, I'd cut the left part (about 1/4) Multimotyl (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEURO ^⇌ 21:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Estrilda (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Epitomizes WOW. Lycaon (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Tony Wills (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ogi Shirakawa02bs3200.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2009 at 11:35:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by 663h (talk) - uploaded by 663h (talk) - nominated by 663h (talk) -- 663h (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sharpening and colour/exposure correction. The comment concerning the image was reflected as much as possible. I'm sorry in poor English. Thank you. --663h (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 663h (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tony Wills (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OldJewishCemeteryTombstones.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 16:31:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tombstones in the Old Jewish Cemetery in Prague

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Aqwis -- Aqwis (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aqwis (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Im sorry but I do not understand the crop/composition.--Korall (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to oppose. ;) I must admit I don't expect this FPC to succeed, but I still nominated it since I like the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it too. MadGeographer (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the composition too, but it seems to me that those colours are not natural, the manipulation should be documented, and the strong tilt that is visible in the background should be removed. -- H005 20:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The colours have not been manipulated - if they are off, it is because the white balance is off. However, I think the white balance is quite accurate: the white wall in the back looks pretty white to me, while it would have been yellowish or bluish if the white balance were off. As for the tilt, I think it creates a more dynamic feel, although I'll upload a straightened version if that's what you prefer. --Aqwis (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This picture is a matter of extreme contrasts: not only between the shades and highlights, but also between the crisp and sharp foreground, and everything else, due to the extremely shallow DOF... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really interesting picture, but sharpness problems, tilt and overexposure (bottom right) spoil it. -- JovanCormac 06:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. —kallerna™ 15:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --Phyrexian (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ti Amo, Metropol 2009 (26).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 00:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tsui - uploaded by Tsui - nominated by Tsui (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nominated because I like it and we do not have a FP from theatre performances yet. Tsui (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Yann (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good composition, but low resolution and overly tight crop. -- JovanCormac 06:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chaotic composition. --Karel (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I especially like the detail of the girl who's smiling in background. --Lošmi (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bit small, but great scene and composition -- H005 17:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like H005 --Phyrexian (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:1928 Model A Ford.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 14:31:05

Info unimpressive quality, bad resolution, blown white on tires, can't read the text on the table which seems to be big enough to be caught on camera without problem, strange tight composition (Original nomination)
Delist -- Avala (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the sign which says "Greater Vancouver Regional District, Crippen Regional Park, Union Steamship Company Store, ?Chamber of Commerce, INFO CENTRE", or the street sign that says "Bowen Island Trunk Rd, Cardena Dr"? or the plaque on the side of the library that says ... ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew what it says it would have been readable, however you can't avoid the fact that the text is almost impossible to read (Regional could easily be Belgemal). Any strain at reading the text that big on a photo is a good enough signal that the photo is of poor quality.--Avala (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've never been there or even heard of the place before, so did no know what it said :-). If you have to squint at a sign in the background to decide whether the quality is any good, then I would say there is actually nothing wrong with the quality - the picture is of the car, not the background :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delist I was very close to voting to keep this one, as it is clearly the best delisting candidate I've seen, but then of course this would never get promoted today, so it has to go. -- JovanCormac 14:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not so bad for year 2004. --Karel (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we have some kind of amnesty for poor quality photos because they were taken with a poor 1.2mpx cam 6 years ago?--Avala (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My view exactly. I would welcome your participation in the lively discussion going on here. -- JovanCormac 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course --Tony Wills (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like an argument :).--Avala (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-), I am glad you appreciate the succinctness of it ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very rare auto -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is about the quality of the photo, not the rarity of the subject.--Avala (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not QI, this is FP, technical quality is one aspect --Tony Wills (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Lošmi (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepTer890 (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- I don't like the environment; the background is distracting. If it's worth value, consider VP. ZooFari 22:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question In your opinion, what is FP for? --Tony Wills (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see FP as a program to acknowledge images that have the least technical issues and are an asset to the Wikimedia projects. If I'm wrong, don't tackle me please. ZooFari 22:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aitutaki sunset 1.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 15:15:09

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): We've seen a million sunsets here, and our standards for them are high. With a blown sun, grainy appearance, and just 1.6 Megapixels, this one doesn't cut it.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 15:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Avala (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Kind of hard to avoid making the sun blown though unless you are doing some specific sun photography. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Its nothing special. I don't know how is this featured in the first place Ter890 (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Petritap (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist not special enogh for FP --Korall (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 1 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Argynnis pandora LC0052.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 17:08:59

Info Im not very impressed by the capture of this butterfly. It is not very sharp and not detailed. Size is above minimum but the actual butterfly is a very small part of the image. If we keep it, I suggest we move it to plants instead of artropods/butterflies. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Korall (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator. -- JovanCormac 17:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's a beautiful capoture of a butterfly which differs a bit from the standard closeups. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daniel78, nice composition -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, what would you think about moving the image to Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Flowers? --Korall (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could it belong to both ? /Daniel78 (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am actually wondering whether this is a particularly large thistle, or the wrong species of butterfly as it looks to be quite small in relation to the thistle. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ter890 (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lycaon (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Avala (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ethmia bipunctella-01 (xndr).jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 09:45:12

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Far too low resolution for an insect macro (1.4 Mpx). Can be retaken, ergo no mitigation.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 09:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Size isn't everything, FP isn't just about big and perfect, it is also about beautiful :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no two users on Commons seem to agree on what FP is about. So I'll just keep nominating those pictures I don't think deserve the badge anymore, and you'll keep opposing those delisting candidates that you deem still worthy. We're floating, really... -- JovanCormac 12:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Avala (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Toony Wills. --Karel (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still supporting this one. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Too small, low DOF. Nice colours though. --Relic38 (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep too nice, still Wow for me -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Already error of judgement at the time of promotion. Lycaon (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom --Korall (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Avala (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kamakura Budda Daibutsu front 1885.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 14:40:12

Info touristy snapshot, blown sky, washed (Original nomination)
Delist -- Avala (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Again, this picture is good, but not good enough. Color balance is off and the sky is blown. -- JovanCormac 14:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepTer890 (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Estrilda (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still very nice, sky are natural for this time -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macroglossum stellatarum.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 09:39:14

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Far too low resolution (0.9 Mpx). Can be retaken, ergo no mitigation. We have high standards for insect macros.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 09:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Avala (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Petritap (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image from year 2003 - size in that time was something different than now. --Karel (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So we give preferential treatment to images because they were nominated in the past? That's insulting and unfair to those who nominate today! FP standards have grown and will continue to grow. In the future, are we going to have categories like "Featured Pictures from 2007-2011", "Featured Pictures from 2011-2015" etc., with a candidate on FPC getting turned down even though 50% of Featured Pictures are worse than it, but they just happen to have been nominated earlier? I sure as hell hope not! -- JovanCormac 17:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is nonsense. If somebody was awarded Olympic medal in year 2002 and the rules for that sport will changed in 2005, nobody will want to take this medal from him back. If image is nice (and this one is), there is necessary judge it under conditions in the time of nomination. If not, only several quite new imges could stay as FP, because technical parameters of cameras will go forward all the time and images will be bigger and better... --Karel (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's your example that is nonsense, I'm afraid. The Featured Picture label is very clear about what it says: This is one of our finest images. It does not say: This was one of the finest images we had back in 2004. Nobody would claim that an athlete who has won Olympic gold back in 1990 is one of the greatest athletes in the world today, yet this is what the FP label stands for. For this reason, one really cannot make a comparison here. -- JovanCormac 20:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Too small. We have a delist candidate section for just this purpose; FP's that do not meet the evolving standards. --Relic38 (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. Lycaon (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Avala (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /reviewed

File:Nephila inaurata dsc07682.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 15:00:45

Info another image from 2005 and we've got so many sharper images of spiders since then. (Original nomination)
Delist for some reason this one is not even listed there, but you can see some of the better examples in fp list here. -- Avala (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Image noise is really bad. -- JovanCormac 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice image. --Karel (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really good picture in my oppinion. Could be denoised, but couldn't we just replace the existing image in that case. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Tony Wills (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepTer890 (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PalaceOfWestminsterAtNight.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 17:30:41

Info poor quality and resolution; and there are many many photos of this same subject that are by far superior (Original nomination)
Delist after comparing with superior FP File:Palace of Westminster, London - Feb 2007.jpg-- Avala (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Yann (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Avala -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Of course. -- JovanCormac 20:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Far too low res --Korall (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palais de la Decouverte Tyrannosaurus rex p1050042.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 14:56:48

Info nice on thumbnail but when you click on full resolution you can reveal a rather big problem - image is very blurry even as a random commons image, let alone for the fp status (Original nomination)
Delist -- Avala (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delist I wish this was of better quality, but alas, it isn't. -- JovanCormac 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should put it up as a VIC, it looks quite OK even at 800 px. Airwolf (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as last time. Lycaon (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not so blury. And, as author said, "The photo was taken without a flash in a dark museum room." --Lošmi (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what if it was taken without a flash? It can only speak against this photo not in favor. Should we now post a night image of some building where it's all blurry and brag how it was done without a tripod?--Avala (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably that you can not use flash in the museum. Also, in most cases I prefer non-flash images. But that's mine opinion. Anyway, with or without flash, I think this looks fine. --Lošmi (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Passionfruit flower07.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 09:35:56

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Low resolution, unimpressive quality. Can be retaken, ergo no mitigation. Barely got Featured at all in 2005.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 09:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist too small -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator. --Relic38 (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. Lycaon (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puente de San Vicente.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 09:43:14

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Far too low resolution (0.8 Mpx). Can be retaken, ergo no mitigation.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 09:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator, too small -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Even by 2006 standards it is a poor photo. --Avala (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Too small. --Relic38 (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Verona Italy San Anastasia DSC08245 v2.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 14:46:09

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Very low resolution, terrible quality, mediocre composition. It's hard to believe this was ever Featured.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist good find. this one is of really poor quality.--Avala (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The find was not an accident. See User:JovanCormac/LowResFPs for an explanation. -- JovanCormac 15:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. Well not every low resolution image should be delisted but many of those are not of fp quality.--Avala (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Petritap (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Ter890 (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:An Ant in Colombian amber.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2009 at 12:40:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice and rare -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image indeed, relatively rare & interesting. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, odd blue background. —kallerna™ 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd blue background is the sky and I hope you will agree that an ant in amber cannot be as sharp as a normal ant. I mean one cannot expect to see the same level of details on 40 millions years old guy as on a live animal:)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unsharp and crop seem a bit far from the subject. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question If the blue background is the sky, how is this specimen held in the air? Flying Freddy (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I am to say that I took the picture of the specimen while it was flying, would you support the image then

. Okay, in the image description's I added template retouched picture|focus stacked manually, which means that I first held the specimen on one side, then on the other and combined two shots in PS. I believe that the natural light that the Sun provides is the best to show the colors and transparency of an amber.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably why the picture is unsharp. You couldn't have possible held the amber at perfectly the same angle to the camera after changing sides. Focus stacking is a great idea with such an image, but the object shouldn't move between shots. How about placing the stone on a glass table and shooting it through the glass, looking into the sky? -- JovanCormac 10:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Jovan, please do tell me that you did not mean it, I mean you possibly could not mean to ask me an elderly and sick lady

to get myself with my camera under a glass table :). Anyway Tony answered your question below "Amber is not an optically perfect medium". I would add the amber is not flat either. IMO the image is sharp enough. You could even see some details on antennas, you could see that one antenna is stucked inside an amber cloud (how I call it). You also could see every tiny bubble.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Daniel78. -- JovanCormac 06:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Diti the penguin — 06:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice image with great EV, but I'd like to see it photographed with the ant fully sharp and in focus. -- Petritap (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~

Support I think by the nature of amber, you could only have that if you extracted the ant first :-). Amber is not an optically perfect medium. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, it seems to me that you are ready to support the image :)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am ready :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely am ready to Support. Airwolf (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Daniel78. --Karel (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blue may be natural but looks artificial here. It doesn't fit with the color of the amber. --Estrilda (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Bamberg Obere Pfarre Tintoretto BW 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 12:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jacopo Tintoretto - uploaded and nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The top of the frame is oddly unsharp, while the bottom is not. Has this picture been perspective corrected? -- JovanCormac 06:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And there was a Lamp that covered a small part of the frame. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Phyrexian (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Borch III POL COA.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 20:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Waćpan, Avalokitesvara - uploaded by Waćpan - nominated by Adi -- Adi (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adi (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big work, nice result! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you give a link to a scan of the original for comparison? I couldn't find it anywhere on the web. -- JovanCormac 06:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? We used many different sources. For example: http://ebuw.uw.edu.pl/Content/231/directory.djvu, http://ebuw.uw.edu.pl/Content/232/directory.djvu. Notice, that it's the same author, but picture and blazon are different. <br?>PS. Sorry for my English. D@wid (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, the original image is on this page. The knight in supporters in this image is somewhat invalid though. We used Teutonic Knight (Krzyżak in Polish) - because the the blason says so, and we decided that it is more accurate (compare with Borch I from which Borch III evolved - they are on the same page) Avalokitesvara (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you both for the detailed information. -- JovanCormac 15:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! D kuba (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kosiarz-PL 06:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work, congrats --ianaré (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Needs a little more work on the man's face, I think. Looks a bit off. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 07:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2009 at 15:16:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alpine hut Dreizinnenhütte, Dolomites, Italy

Info created by Frisia Orientalis - uploaded by Frisia Orientalis - nominated by Frisia Orientalis -- Frisia Orientalis (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (self nomination) -- Frisia Orientalis (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality: sky overexposed, mountains underexposed. Try early morning or evening, not on mid-day. Yann (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miensk - Ratuša.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2009 at 21:26:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by zedlik - uploaded by zedlik - nominated by zedlik —zedlik (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. —zedlik (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportLookatthis (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown whites throughout and an overly tight crop on bottom spoil this nice picture. -- JovanCormac 10:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Crop on bottom probably could be slightly increased, if it really worth it (there was some reserve which was cropped during the perspective correction). —zedlik (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Fixed. —zedlik (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see en:Perspective_distortion_(photography) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do like the composition (aside from the streak in the sky), but the unsharpness in the lower right ruins it for me. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very dynamic image --Avala (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice photo --Jauhienij (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I saw many photos of Miensk City Holl, but it's really fabulous. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strong distortion --Pudelek (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, distorted lines... --Karel (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tortoise portrait.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2009 at 17:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created,uploaded and nominated by Moise Nicu -- Moise Nicu (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moise Nicu (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry for the lack of ID but i've posted the same image here and i didn't get any response. As i said before, i think it's either a Spur-thighed Tortoise or a Hermann's Tortoise. Any help is appreciated. --Moise Nicu (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting portrait --Korall (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! I hope that someone can help with the identification... -- MJJR (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was disappointed to quality on full size. —kallerna™ 09:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not identified. Lycaon (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Issue addressed. Lycaon (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is as if you can see what the guy has been through by looking at its eyes. Ter890 (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ter890, this image has a lot of character for a reptile photo which mitigates the slight quality problems for me. -- JovanCormac 17:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Objection Still not identified. Lycaon (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ as Lycaon, no ID --ianaré (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ianaré (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done. I've looked closer at both species and it's a Testudo graeca --Moise Nicu (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mt Redoubt 2009-03-21 1237756418 ak231.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2009 at 05:33:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cyrus Read, AVO/USGS - uploaded by H-stt - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love the contrast here; fire and ice.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice composition but very noisy on dark areas. —kallerna™ 11:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is 'noise' in the dark areas, there aren't very many photons :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also color noise in the bright snow areas though. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support A magnificent picture, rarely do I see such a good exposure showing good detail of snow and/or ice --Tony Wills (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Estrilda (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique picture, excellent sharpness, even more so concidering that it was shot from a plane or helicopter. --NormanB (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:C17 aircraft alt.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2009 at 19:50:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thirteen C-17 Globemaster III aircraft fly over the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia created by Staff Sgt. Jacob N. Bailey, U.S. Air Force - uploaded by OhanaUnited - nominated by Tseno Maximov
Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ummm... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not featured as another version already is. Lycaon (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we just be assessing this image, and delist the other if this is successful? --Tony Wills (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there any significant difference from the current FP File:C17_DF-SD-06-03299.jpg apart from a very slight squelching of background noise and larger file size? Interesting that there are 4 versions of this uploaded here, but we don't seem to have a copy of the original (everyone has made there own edits) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nicor (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too similar to an existing featured picture. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Korea-Joseon Dynasty-Gilt-bronze seated Avalokitesvara at Beopjusa Temple-01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2009 at 01:29:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kernbeisser at Flickr- uploaded by Tortfeasor - retouched and nominated by Caspian blue 01:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Caspian blue 01:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ I have an aversion to all things religious but this is simply stunning. --ianaré (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral oops, the figure is cut off on the right --ianaré (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Nicor (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Multimotyl (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask you for the opposing reasons? --Caspian blue 02:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, but the flash ruins it. You should try with a tripod and a longer exposure. Yann (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. Too snapshotesque in appearance. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Usain Bolt Olympics Celebration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2009 at 18:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Richard Giles, uploaded by Manjithkaini, nominated by Yann (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator Yann (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is the kind of quality free images we strive for. Bastique ^demandez 18:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though I think the dust spot above his left should should be cloned out. --Korall (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Kwj2772 (msg) 03:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture is truly worth a thousand words Ter890 (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. -- JovanCormac 06:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Aren't commercial use of photos taken at the Olympic Games forbidden? Diti the penguin — 09:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not by the photographer. How can the IOC have a copyright on this picture? That's the point of this article. Yann (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the article seems to show that commercial use of Olympia photos for some reason requires permission from the IOC. I have retracted my vote of support until this matter is settled. -- JovanCormac 13:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The claims of the IOC cannot be related to copyright, so they do not concern us. But I think that these claims are complete bullshit, just to be clear. Yann (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree, yet I'm surprised that nobody has filed a deletion request yet, given the usual copyright paranoia on this site that often honors even very dubious claims... anyway, enabled my vote again. -- JovanCormac 17:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a copyright issue - the author of the photo owns the copyright. It is a matter of whether he has violated the terms of his contract with them (the entry ticket) by publishing the photo with a license that allows commercial use - purely a civil matter, they may wish to sue him for breach of contract. But the free license can not be revoked (of course TINLA etc ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Javier ME (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Confirmation today that the IOC say (even though it may not) it has to do with copyright: their terms of use forbid the use of Creative Commons licenses, according to this article. Diti the penguin — 15:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad photograph, but not FP material: composition is so-so, background is messy and distracting, point of view is not very good, perspective is all flat due to the telelens, and the subject is taken at an unflattering moment. Rama (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - soft, funny composition, really doesn't look like a good sport portrait Multimotyl (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Not a perfect photo, as two commentors above said, but still a very good one, and the fact that it was taken immediately upon the breaking of a world record gives it a great wow factor. Jonathunder (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Rama and motion blur. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Ziegenkopf.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2009 at 10:52:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Böhringer - uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fabulous detail of a striking object, with a well suited background. 99of9 (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It is a good picture but it is not the best Ter890 (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but not enough "wow!" for FP -- H005 17:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support If all Featured Pictures were as great as this one we wouldn't have any problems. -- JovanCormac 17:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. –blurpeace ^(talk) 18:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination and votings --Böhringer (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great addition to the FP library. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic picture --Phyrexian (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good image but underexposed. --Dschwen (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Is this an oppose or just a comment? -- H005 22:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SichelMond (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see the FP in this picture. --Estrilda (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, slightly underexposed. —kallerna™ 12:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a little dark, but great. I tried applyin levels in The GIMP with black point at 22, gamma at 1,83 and white point at 234. It looks much better. Multimotyl (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark, no wow--Tired time (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. A right space is narrow. --663h (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Bad lighting. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lion Ngorongoro 12.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2009 at 12:29:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nicor - uploaded by Nicor - nominated by Nicor -- Nicor (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nicor (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might look better cropped to make the subjects bigger. --ianaré (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low overall quality (look at the fur of the lion on the left). -- JovanCormac 14:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Briksdalen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2009 at 18:52:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Aqwis -- Aqwis (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aqwis (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please geocode it. --Kjetil_r 09:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I've added an approximate location. --Aqwis (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kjetil_r 17:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mountains and sky overexposed, sharpness just average. Yann (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment the sharpness, but the dynamic range of the scene is so great that it's impossible to avoid parts of the scene's being overexposed (note that I actually disagree that the mountains, and most of the sky, are overexposed - and the only part of the picture that is actually clipped is a small part of the clouds). To avoid the clouds' being overexposed, I'd have to underexpose the rest of the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you probably can't avoid this because of the dynamic range, but then you need to choose another time or another day, or blending several images. I am not convinced by the composition either. Yann (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support eye pleasing image --Leafnode 07:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, sorry! --Claus (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Image-Schloss Nymphenburg Munich CC edit3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2009 at 20:59:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Richard Bartz aka Makro Freak - uploaded by Latics aka Crassic - nominated by Avala -- Avala (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image already featured on English Wikipedia -- Avala (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hey, Richard, I know you're watching this page. Please come back :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ja, wir vermissen dich --Böhringer (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support bis auf die Skulptur vorne rechts perfekt --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. Tiptoety ^talk 01:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful weather, technically perfect. -- JovanCormac 06:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not even sure he watches this page. But he sure left a huge gap here, which is difficult to fill. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 12:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... if he comes back ;). —kallerna™ 13:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Genuine and unequalled Richard Bartz quality... -- MJJR (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEURO ^⇌ 21:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – great symmetry. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everyone. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Juliancolton. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Physalis 024a.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2009 at 10:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rüdiger Kratz - uploaded by Überraschungsbilder - nominated by Ra'ike -- Ra'ike T C 10:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ra'ike T C 10:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the sharpest, but the wow! is there. -- H005 17:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry. -- JovanCormac 12:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. —kallerna™ 12:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp.--Claus (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Strehla (in Sachsen) by J. Umbach.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2009 at 19:35:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Julius Umbach - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. A nice example of a nearly completely neglected art style on Commons. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kosiarz-PL 09:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2009Centobverse.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2009 at 00:30:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by United States Mint - uploaded by Flashpoint13 - nominated by Ksd5 -- Siddharth Patil (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Siddharth Patil (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's 3X too small (0.6 Mpx) --S23678 (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Agalychnis callidryas (eye detail).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2009 at 11:47:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Lycaon (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taken in the wild in its natural environment. A 10 seconds' opportunity.
Weak Oppose You should have took the picture of the little guy's entire face. It is a good picture, but not enough "depth" if you know what I mean, for FP Ter890 (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Did I understand you right?Did you really applied criteria "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject." ? --Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a difficult subject. It's a stationary object in daylight that the photographer was able to get very close to. It's hard to imagine an easier subject, actually. -- JovanCormac 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jovan, I respect your opinion very much, but I believe you are wrong on that one. I myself saw wild frogs like these one in Costa Rica. They are very small,very fast and usually found in a dark places. I do not recall seeing lot's of sun in tropical forests in Costa Rica (the trees are too tall). --Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see User_talk:JovanCormac#Agalychnis_callidryas. While I understand that it is more difficult than I thought to get such a shot, the examples given in that thread clearly show that one can do better. -- JovanCormac 18:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ter890. -- JovanCormac 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the file shows good quality and very good for image of the day --Elberth 00001939 (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though I'd prefer a larger DOF. But like the title says, it's an "eye detail". -- Petritap (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support framing could be better but these guys are very fast ... good detail study --ianaré (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little too narrow DOF, buy eye is good . - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low DOF, bad framing, not perfect quality. It's good, but not FP. —kallerna™ 12:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really, really like the eye. But there is too much of the image not in focus etc, it needs to be cropped to highlight the subject (eye detail). I have experimented with different crops but couldn't find anything that pleases me. Perhaps someone better at composition issues, than me, will have a go :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking about the crop. IMO, if it is to be cropped, it should be cropped from the original in order do not loose the resolution.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Kallerna -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Kosiarz-PL 09:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Estrilda (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC) --Estrilda (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Shallow DoF and confusing depth. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, I think that the unusual DOF actually draws a person towards the eye. I like it. --JalalV (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stream Haromhuta.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2009 at 11:53:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lhgergo - uploaded by Lhgergo - nominated by Lhgergo -- lhgergo (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- lhgergo (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is not very good, for example where the sun shines through the trees, and the gravel on the ground seem to have too much contrast. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Overexposed, snapshot-like feel, JPEG artifacts, sharpness issues. No chance of promotion. -- JovanCormac 16:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think there are enough people opposing the picture to be FP for you to put the {{FPX}} Template. Hear what others have to say first.Ter890 (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you check the purpose of FPX in the rules. FPX has nothing to do with the number of oppose votes, it has to do with a picture not falling within the guidelines (which this one doesn't, due to serious quality issues). -- JovanCormac 12:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for good focus Ter890 (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special: quality and composition average, ordinary subject. Yann (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jovan. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jovan -- Petritap (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Multimotyl (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Kosiarz-PL 09:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Striking A Match.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2009 at 08:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Taro Taylor - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Herzi Pinki -- Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! Yann (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks great as a thumbnail but the full resolution reveals some serious technical issues. --NEURO ^⇌ 10:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is that? High speed photography? Photo manipulation? A 3D rendering? Digital art? -- JovanCormac 10:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per NEUROtiker. —kallerna™ 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it possible that whatever is in the area I anotated above could be removed? Some of it may be water, which I am fine with, but there is at least one speck there that is't and I would like to see it removed before deciding one this nom. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per NEUROtiker Ter890 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Im ignorant enogh to not have a clue of what it is on the picture. I do not see the value for wikimedia of a image that is not properly described and not categorized, no matter how good the quality is. -- Korall (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An intriguing image, perhaps a stream of water just as it hits a smooth body of water. I think it is well done but, without a decent description, it can't make FP. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Looks interesting but seems bad quality. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Nightwatch by Rembrandt - Rijksmuseum.jpg

File:Maria Woerth Schloss Reifnitz Suedostdansicht 03102009 224.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2009 at 13:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Petritap -- Petritap (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful scenery, but very unsharp on the left. -- JovanCormac 06:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do enjoy the composition, but it's really too unsharp all over. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative crop File:Maria Woerth Schloss Reifnitz Suedostdansicht 03102009 224-crop.jpg[edit]

Info slightly rotated and cropped
Support --Tony Wills (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I think the composition has been spoiled; the original gravitated around the house. It needs to be the focus. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We get an endless stream of complaints about boring central compositions ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative crop2 File:Maria Woerth Schloss Reifnitz Suedostdansicht 03102009 224-crop2.jpg[edit]

Info slightly rotated and cropped to emphasize castle and water, rather than castle and sky, slightly sharpened
Support --Tony Wills (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. / Yann (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

File:Coyote portrait.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2009 at 17:56:17

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): 1 Megapixel only, terrible crop. Barely got Featured in 2005, which says enough.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 17:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator --Korall (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Jovan -- Petritap (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 17:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - nice image but resolution is low.--Avala (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As per nominator. --JalalV (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as nominator. --Chrumps (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Petritap (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KinderdijkMolens02.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2009 at 16:19:52

Info not so sharp, not so vivid, not so spectacular for this status (Original nomination)
Delist -- Avala (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The resolution by itself is inacceptable already. -- JovanCormac 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Does not mitigate low resolution. --JalalV (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nom. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Petritap (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nice-night-view-with-blurred-cars 1200x900.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2009 at 16:24:37

Info the worst one so far. Even if we didn't have enough high resoltuion photos in 2005 the photography itself was equally developed so I am wondering how did this become featured? Overoverexposed lights, amateur motion blur, blurry trees, color speckles on beach, pixelization on water, extremely blurry buildings, wet feeling to colours, small resolution, poor composition... (Original nomination)
Strong delist -- Avala (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Definitely per nom. Lycaon (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I had to re-check that this was actually Featured. It's hard to believe. -- JovanCormac 17:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no doubt --Korall (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist , modern cellphone cameras can take pictures of better quality than this. --Aqwis (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As per nominator. --JalalV (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Motion blurness. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 10 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Petritap (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Novo mesto Breg 2.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2009 at 20:42:55

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Besides the inacceptable resolution of less than 1 Mpx, the composition is mediocre at best (crop on right) and the subject about as, well, ordinary as it gets.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 20:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per JovanCormac -- Petritap (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delist nice, but too small -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - nice image but far away from the FP quality.--Avala (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator--Korall (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist , I disagree with the nominator on everything except for the resolution's being too low, which is in itself a reason to de-feature this picture. --Aqwis (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice image. --Karel (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Estrilda (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist No mitigating circumstances for low resolution. --JalalV (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Low resolution. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Petritap (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petrified forest log 1 md.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2009 at 17:54:48

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): 1 Megapixel only. The picture would have to be ten times as good in order to mitigate that.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 17:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Avala (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 17:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Its a very nice shot, but the resolution is far too low. --Korall (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As per nominator. --JalalV (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Low resolution. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Petritap (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chinese stamp in 1950.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2009 at 15:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fact that it has been used already gives it a history Ter890 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing resolution for a photo of a stamp. -- JovanCormac 06:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Korall (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Javier ME (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose maybe QI or VI but FP?! The pic documents the stamp well but that's all. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are wrong in your assessment. The image that has both quality and value, as this image does, is definitely qualifies for FP. The image is used in quite a few articles around Wikipedias.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm having trouble putting into words just how beautiful and valuable I find this picture. The sheer sense of history that permeates it, and the way in which it illustrates relations between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic before the Sino-Soviet split is breath-taking. Thank you for taking this picture Mila. I take my hat off to you. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support worthwhile --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is the perfect illustration for the term unholy alliance. Airwolf (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 07:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ;) Rocket000 (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kosiarz-PL 09:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Estrilda (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Petritap (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Grand Royal Coat of Arms of France & Navarre.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2009 at 03:06:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sodacan - uploaded by Sodacan - nominated by Connormah -- Connormah (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing work here. -- Connormah (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --ianaré (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support !!! Wow! Great work, thank you!! --Phyrexian (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wow.--Avala (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really impressive. Avalokitesvara (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow! Amazing!!! Ayack (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Awesome Waćpan (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The feet of the angels are a bit knobbly but the work is indeed quite impressive. Lycaon (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 06:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant. Durova (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. --Chrumps (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive! --Leafnode 15:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Petritap (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:John Webber - Poedooa, the Daughter of Oree.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2009 at 02:22:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John Webber (1752 – 1793) - uploaded and nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov. Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the earliest images of a Polynesian woman produced by a European painter for a western audience. -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though she still looks a little westernized when compared to pictures of modern Polynesians. -- JovanCormac 12:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kosiarz-PL 09:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Jovan. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chrumps (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Petritap (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pygocentrus natterei 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2009 at 14:10:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karel - uploaded by Karel - nominated by Karel
Support -- Karel (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little soft, dust visible (bad scanning or dust on sensor) + head seems to be in shadow -- Multimotyl (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Petritap (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waverley at Swanage.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2009 at 14:59:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality image of historic boat.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but unlike Mila I think that the quality isn't even remotely good enough. Sharpness simply leaves too much to be desired. -- JovanCormac 16:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the image is QI already. It was not me, who promoted it, which means that at least two people believe that the quality is fine. :), and besides we do not have nearly enough boats featured--Mbz1 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might be of some assistance in that department. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who promoted it. It is a good QI, but for FP it's lacking that little extra. Maybe if the sun cam from the left and lit the whole vessel, but as it is I have to

Oppose, sorry. -- H005

06:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose poor light --ianaré (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Overall a nice image, I especiaaly like that I can see the creases in the metal plates along the bow :-). I think the image as a whole is properly exposed, but it needs the sun a little further around to light up the stern section, the paddle wheel and the lower parts of the hull. As it was berthed, perhaps a stitched photo would be a possibility to give the resolurtion desired by others. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Petritap (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:-88 Navy Chevrolet Monte Carlo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2009 at 08:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communications Specialist 2nd Class Kristopher Wilson - uploaded by Raeky - nominated by Raeky -- — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of the best Ter890 (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Main subject too small. —kallerna™ 10:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject too small given the low resolution. -- JovanCormac 12:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I'm sorry, I can't see anything outstanding in this picture. MartinD (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution --Phyrexian (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Multimotyl (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others. Also I don't like the composition. Yann (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Race car pictures should be cropped narrow to the car, avoiding large spaces showing motion blur... right? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know there was rules to art. :P — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support = love the composition--Tired time (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Petritap (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elakala Waterfalls Swirling Pool Mossy Rocks.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2009 at 08:05:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ForestWander - uploaded by Raeky - nominated by Raeky -- — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, if that's what swirling pools looks like Ter890 (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO this is oversaturated. —kallerna™ 10:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the umpteenth waterfall photo we've seen here over the course of a few months, and I'm just about tired of them, but since this is the only one that stands out from the rest (by virtue of the swirling pool), it'd be wrong not to promote it. -- JovanCormac 10:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One of the nicest waterfall images I've ever seen... It's just a shame that the rock on the left obstructs the whirlpool. This is a better composition, but not nearly as good technically. Diliff (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kosiarz-PL 14:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic --Phyrexian (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support toll --Böhringer (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I want to go there... AlexAH (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support a little overprocessed (sharpness, saturation), very good nonetheless. --ianaré (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support eye candy :) --Leafnode 06:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated —kallerna™ 12:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated eye candy :-) Multimotyl (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe it's oversaturated but the Wow! is present. Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really beautiful scene, but there's some quite heavy chromatic aberration especially in the top left part plus the already mentioned oversaturation. --NEURO ^⇌ 21:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A striking picture, but I must agree that it looks over saturated. That swirling pool, looks more like the ripples of a stone tossed in (concentric circles), but a good effect --Tony Wills (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oversaturated but in a good way :) /Daniel78 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks unnatural to me. --Estrilda (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. Beautiful, but oversaturated.--663h (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnatural looking, over-saturated. Maedin\^talk 14:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Muhammad (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated - Eye candy. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Petritap (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

file:ReichstagDomeInside.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2009 at 12:28:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by RA-Smit -- Ra-smit (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ra-smit (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed (see people in foreground and building visible throught the glass). Also high image noise. -- JovanCormac 12:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some noise, but too interesting to oppose.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The mirror is so intriguing... AlexAH (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where's the Exif data ? --ianaré (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The picture is a vertical panorama of 4 photos (stitch program: PTgui). That's why there is no Exif data. --RA-Smit 08:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exposure is ok for me, but the noise is a problem as well as the weak chromatic aberration. Also the image lacks a bit crispiness IMHO. --NEURO ^⇌ 21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support not perfect but very interesting view --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support; didn't notice the overexposure, the image IMO is interesting enough to be featured despite slight problems with sharpness and CA. --Yerpo (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Petritap (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Askari Independence monument in Moshi Tanzania.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2009 at 16:55:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I realy like it, but I believe it's tilted to the left. Airwolf (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think its an optical illusion. I zoomed it up to 100%+ and used the ruler tool, didn't get any tilt located. --Muhammad (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not convinced by composition and slightly tilted. --ianaré (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with ianaré --AngMoKio (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is the image slightly tilted or the monument slightly lopsided? Anyway, the tilt (if any) is negligible and no reason for opposing IMO. Nice and interesting picture. -- MJJR (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Estrilda (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per ianaré. Yann (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ianaré --Pudelek (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carpenter bee head and compound eyes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2009 at 16:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Infoc/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- what a sexy smile --ianaré (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good magnification, but very low DOF. -- JovanCormac 07:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In a natural setting, it would be impossible to get a better DOF --Muhammad (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Natural environment? Wow. To be honest, I had always assumed that macro photographers kill the bugs before shooting them at a magnification like this... -- JovanCormac 18:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Usually, photographers either kill/freeze them or look for dead bugs to work with. This however was of a living, moving bee. --Muhammad (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question How was this made? What lens did you use? —kallerna™ 17:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't a photographer keep a few of his secrets :-) --Muhammad (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Multimotyl (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMHO below macro FP standards. --NEURO ^⇌ 21:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as? Do we have many pictures of this sort? --Muhammad (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion this image can't keep up with other FPs such as File:Calliphora_sp_Portrait.jpg, File:Musca_domestica_Portrait.jpg or File:Aeshna_cyanea_-_head_close-up_(aka).jpg. --NEURO ^⇌ 19:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per NEUROtiker. Also GFDL 1.2 is not an appropriate free license for a picture. Yann (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please raise your license issues elsewhere. This is not the right place. --Muhammad (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann. -- Petritap (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the wrong place to discuss GFDL 1.2 --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Mbdortmund. And because the photo is cool too. :) Diti the penguin — 12:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose GerardM (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Airwolf (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Shallow DoF. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mantukimalainen -.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2009 at 11:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 11:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 11:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus has missed the head and got the wings --Muhammad (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Muhammad. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Accept Muhammad + IMO bee is just too small. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 11:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mother-spider-and-spiderlings-0a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2009 at 22:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Adamantios - uploaded by Adamantios - nominated by H005 -- H005 22:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just stumbled across this image and find it absolutely fascinating. -- H005 22:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A gentle crop on the sides and top, perhaps? Airwolf (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needs cropping --ianaré (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Done. Info There's also an alternative version that could just as well be nominated/promoted. I'm unsure which version I like better. -- H005 21:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Useful for en:wp species info boxes, but generally I don't like animals and plants photographed with sterile, 'studio' backgrounds or un-natural surroundings. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture, I like white backgrounds very much (more versatile for printing). -- JovanCormac 09:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a good point, I wonder if we have a category or tag that helps find images with transparent or white backgrounds ... I'll go and look :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, we do: Category:White background, I'll remember that for future reference :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Great find. I'll remember it as well... -- JovanCormac 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--SichelMond (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but not that good or special. —kallerna™ 13:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As JovanCormac. Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not identified. Lycaon (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. Good, but it doesn't surpass. --663h (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Javier ME (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zygaena lonicerae.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2009 at 08:01:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slight image noise, but a truly great picture nontheless. Brings back memories of macros that are more than just close ups of insects, but have artistic value as well. -- JovanCormac 10:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice composition; reminds me of Richard. But very noisy. --Muhammad (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, poor quality. —kallerna™ 11:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice photo, quality good enough. Wow for me -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot believe how much noise there is at ISO 100 on this photo. Has it been digitally modified? Diti the penguin — 15:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, editet: crop, denoise and etc. About noise: photo taken not with Canon 50D, but with Panasonic FZ50 . Matrix is very noisy, especially color noise. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Multimotyl (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, looks a bit precarious though :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colors!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Below macro FP standards: seems to have lost quite a bit of detail possibly due to noise reduction. --NEURO ^⇌ 21:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but I think the quality is sufficient. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Not crisp enough compared to other macros. ~~If I'm not mistaken, the subject is dead which makes an easy capture of an image, thus this one could have been better.~~ ZooFari 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know it's dead? Airwolf (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead?! You kidding? Photo sessions after he flew as well. Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry if I was wrong. It just seemed awkward that the insect's head was leaning on the stem and not all legs grasped on to it. I'll assume integrity. ZooFari 22:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I upload new version. Maybe now problems are fixed. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<VERY LOUDLY> People, if you want to add annotations on technical flaws in a particular image, use the nomination page, and not the fil page. The annotations on the file page are there for the world to see and should only be used to add comments about elements of the image itself. Airwolf (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI think it's beautiful enough to overcome the barely sufficient quality. 99of9 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversharpened --ianaré (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversharpened --663h (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI really like the composition and colours but in full format it does not look very good. Might be overprocessed. --Korall (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much too noisy, sorry. --Yerpo (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oradea (Nagyvárad) - piaţa Unirii.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2009 at 16:50:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oradea (Nagyvárad) - piaţa Unirii 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2009 at 16:52:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Relationship between synoptic gospels.png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2009 at 20:42:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alecmconroy - uploaded by Alecmconroy - nominated by Newman Luke -- Newman Luke (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Newman Luke (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should be vectorized. -- JovanCormac 20:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no exceptional character/qualities, should be in SVG. Connormah (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has no exceptional character, both on it's technical qualities and it's composition --S23678 (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose per above. ZooFari 01:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tel-Aviv 100.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2009 at 14:44:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rastaman3000 (talk) - uploaded by Rastaman3000 (talk) - nominated by Rastaman3000 (talk) -- Rastaman3000 (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rastaman3000 (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While technically sound (good sharpness and contrast, althoug with some blown highlights and fringe effects), the composition is cluttered and seems to lack a focus. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor composition. Also, the crop needs work. I do not like that part of the flag is cut off in the upper right hand corner. Tiptoety ^talk 19:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's poorly composed and overexposed --ianaré (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose Its cluttered, and it doesn't seem to have any impact. Show the old and the new on a much much wider panorama. With only that picture to go on, it could just as easily be the skyscraper that's out of place - the only skyscraper for miles.
- Comment I think you should sign your your vote. Well maybe it won't matter if the candidate is deleted in accordance with the FPX. -- Petritap (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerzy Swoboda.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2009 at 21:46:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michał Sulik - uploaded by Michał Sulik - nominated by Michał Sulik -- Michał Sulik (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michał Sulik (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - a bit soft Multimotyl (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality and noisy for me. --Phyrexian (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose motion blur --Leafnode 14:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kilkele Kanisfluh Mellau.jpg , not featured[edit]

Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry, but the lens flares ruin the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think the overall photo is too stunning to let one small issue "disqualify" it. If complaints keep coming in, maybe a tighter crop to leave out the lens flare? AlexAH (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Aqwis. Not the appropriate time of the day to shoot a panorama, as the shadows and underexposed portions are also an issue. ZooFari 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Aqwis / ZooFari. --Kjetil_r 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this lens flare, :-) Maedin\^talk 14:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW - Pudelek (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Overexposure. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lens flares do not disturb (in this case) - gives this image a certain atmosphere. I like it. --High Contrast (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where's the voting period info? -- Petritap (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polistirolo.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2009 at 14:30:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Phyrexian - uploaded by Phyrexian - nominated by Phyrexian -- Phyrexian (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Phyrexian (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting, over and under exposed. --ianaré (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even, look at the histogram. It is nearly a perfect exposure. Diti the penguin — 15:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your Coolpix is overworked with the dynamic range here. Composition and idea are good, but it's hard to pull this off well with a point'n'shooter. -- JovanCormac 14:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--SichelMond (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Multimotyl (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request Please give a valid reason for opposing, as a courtesy to the photographer. Diti the penguin — 16:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info I don't like composition and light. Multimotyl (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I do not see anything special about it. It is just a piece of Styrofoam. No history, no "depth" if you know what I mean. Ter890 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean, but I am not of the same opinion. An image like this can say a lot of things I think. Styrofoam (polistirolo in italian) is an artificial material, it's used for packaging and it has nothing poetic, it isn't warm, it's a modern material without history, there aren't noble things made of it. So why take a picture like that? It's not so explicative of the object, so it's useless, why make a portrait like this? But also a sunrise is useless, also a rainbow is useless. Art is useless. Beauty is in the eyes of who watch. Try to touch it with the fingers of a child. It could be very depth, it could have a so heroic history. I see all these things in the picture I made, and moreover I think it reach quality standars for FP. But if it doesn't, it remains a very beautiful pic for me :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Slight light is expressible. --663h (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jens Stoltenberg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2009 at 21:36:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kjetil r - uploaded by David Levy - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 15:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice portrait--Korall (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Javier ME (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Connormah (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Joan of Arc WWI lithograph2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2009 at 23:13:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Haskell Coffin - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Joan of Arc WWI lithograph.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Durova (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. -- JovanCormac 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good job. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kaldari (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Javier ME (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jonathunder (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NSB Di 4 Saltfjell.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2009 at 23:11:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support At least this day all the waiting in the cold was worth it - I quite like the result. -- Kabelleger (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Multimotyl (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful /Daniel78 (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 14:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Volcanic Ash Dunes.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2009 at 15:00:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Flick user tarotastic - uploaded by Mifter - nominated by Mifter -- Mifter (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mifter (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! --Phyrexian (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the overexposed sky is unfortunate, but this is a good picture regardless. --Aqwis (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely composition, but poor quality. —kallerna™ 16:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not see the categories, and where is the place.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite some fairly minor issues. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I enjoy the composition and the perspective. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose underexposure not forgivable given the amount of other high quality images of the same subject. --ianaré (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not underexposed at all (check image histogram), there is about 1.4% of pixels over exposed (clouds/sky). I think the steam and ash in the air makes it looks as though the image quality isn't as good as it really is :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What other high quality images of this subject are their on Commons? When I was looking around prior to nominating this for FP, I was unable to find any similar images. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked in the category. I think File:Tavurvur volcano 5.jpg and File:Tavurvur volcano 1.jpg are better. --ianaré (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As ianaré. Expositon parameters. --Karel (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a real pity, but from the technical point of view I have to agree with kallerna. --NEURO ^⇌ 21:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality, seem to be a lot of noise and lack of detail. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice res and angle. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tony Wills (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since it looks like it will get promoted: Could you fix the tilted horizon? --NEURO ^⇌ 05:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zamek Radun.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2009 at 02:11:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Multimotyl - uploaded by Multimotyl - nominated by Multimotyl -- Multimotyl (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Multimotyl (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sharpness is not at its best ; colours appear unnaturally saturated ; contrast is somewhat harsh between almost overexposed highlights and fairly dark shadows. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC) striken on 16:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC) by MAURILBERT (discuter)[reply]
Oppose Castle is overexposed. -- JovanCormac 06:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I corrected the overexposure, sharpness and saturation. New version is online now.
Support, pretty good. Interesting subject. --Aqwis (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the new version. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 09:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chrumps (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exposition, as JovanCormac. --Karel (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lookatthis (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amphipodredkils.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2009 at 10:02:34

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): The picture looks cool, but the resolution (0.6 Megapixels only!) is beyond inacceptable for a Featured Picture.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 10:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist even the subject is uncertain (it says "possibly Ampeliscidae") --Avala (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject is certain, the exact species is uncertain :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There may be mitigating reasons for size if we knew the size of the subject, I understand these can range from 1mm upwards. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Im sorry but I just cant understand how absense of a proper descripton can be a mitigating reason. In my opinion, it works in the opposite direction. Otherwise we could feature any picture bad enogh to make proper identification impossible just because the shot might be hard enogh to take so that we might never get a better picture of that subject. --Korall (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, you mis-understand me. I am not saying "absence of a proper description can be a mitigating reason", I am with-holding my delist/keep vote until I have more information (hopefully someone will enlighten me before voting is over :-). If indeed this is a very small crustacean then I would certainly vote to keep. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My guess is between 8 mm and 12 mm, could even be larger as it is a deep water pelagic species. Family (Ampeliscidae) is most probably correct. Lycaon (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Unidentified and low resolution. the total value is not there. --Korall (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully delist. Not properly identified. Lycaon (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist No mitigating circumstances. --JalalV (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 1 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fishermen - Tamandaré - Brasil pan.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2009 at 07:53:24

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Inacceptable resolution of less than 1 Mpx, blurry.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still special. Estrilda (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image is still good though.--Avala (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Jovan --Korall (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As per nominator. --JalalV (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unanimous support on original nom. Not many FPs from this country. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flammulina velutipes.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2009 at 11:06:01

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): 0.5 Megapixels??? How did such an ordinary picture ever get Featured with that resolution?
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 11:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice. --Karel (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist not just because of the resolution, the photo itself is of below average quality --Avala (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator. -- Petritap (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per Avala -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As per nominator. --JalalV (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request - Retake picture with higher resolution. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Helicopter rescue sancy takeoff.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2009 at 07:56:57

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Bad image noise, washed-out colors, blurry, resolution less than 2 Mpx. We have so many better helicopter shots that aren't Featured.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - noisy, I am sure there are better photos.--Avala (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice image. --Karel (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Was also up for delisting 2 years ago. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice, still FP for me. And thanks to Daniel78 -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As per nominator. --JalalV (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Low quality. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IC Macroglossum stellatarum1.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2009 at 07:54:59

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Resolution is far too low for a macro (1.3 Mpx only), bad image noise, visible even in thumbnail.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice. --Karel (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Avala (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per Jovan --Korall (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per Nominator -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As per nominator. --JalalV (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Per high image noise. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Chrumps (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kiwi aka.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2009 at 22:24:39

Info Less than 1 MP, can be retaken anytime (Original nomination)
Delist -- Korall (talk)
Delist per Nominator -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Everyone knows that I'm all for delisting anything with low resolution, and my fingers are twitching to vote delist here. However, I have decided to not vote at all anymore until we have reached a consensus on what FP is about. -- JovanCormac 13:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request - Retake picture. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Very low resolution. Can be retaken. --JalalV (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lemon.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2009 at 22:27:17

Info Easy to retake, low resolution(Original nomination)
Delist -- Korall (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Nominator -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Everyone knows that I'm all for delisting anything with low resolution, and my fingers are twitching to vote delist here. However, I have decided to not vote at all anymore until we have reached a consensus on what FP is about. -- JovanCormac 13:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not need to discuss what FP is about
- Delist - Low resolution - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Very low resolution. Can be retaken. --JalalV (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nidarosdom 1857.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2009 at 10:58:21

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): 0.6 Megapixels only. Barely got Featured in 2005.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 10:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there were no megapixels in 1857 when they took this photo.--Avala (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There sure were when this photo was scanned, though. -- JovanCormac 15:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can't create more detail in the photo using a scanner if there is no more detail. If the image is small, it's small and scanning it as huge size will only get you to see the details of the paper, not the photo.--Avala (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem with rescanning is access to the original, often it is just not available. This is a striking photo, regardless of the damage to the photo and scan resolution. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Avala and Tony Wills -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is taken in 1857. So what if it is 0.6 Megapixels? The historical value has to be taken into account. Ter890 (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the others. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Avala. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historic/rare content can't be judged by the same standards as we do modern content, nominating old historic images for WP:POINT about 1mp isn't very good. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please explain how the nomination disrupts Wikipedia. -- Petritap (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fail to see that as well. Raeky, it appears to me as if you don't know what the FP delisting process on Commons is for. -- JovanCormac 14:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Resolution. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 7 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Hamza Issa Farid est un Djiboutiens,et il est un etudiant .Il a commence L'etude de 1 er année jusqu'a second;ecole Champion et Lycée Mandela.Et Mantenant,il passe L'anticipe blanc.Il à une belle Famille,les noms des freres: Mahomed,Ibrahim,Abdi,Idriss,Sadik,Hamza,Bilal,Youssouf;et les noms des soeurs:Moumina,Rahma,Zamzam;les noms des parents:Issa Farid Adaweh,Fardoussa Sayed Idriss.Et aussi son couleur préferée est: Rouge;son matieré est:Arabe.Il est Muslumans; il decteste les menteurs et les voleurs;il aime ses familles et ses amis; et il aime trop voyage comme Dubai;Turkey...

REDIRECT Nom de la page de destination

File:Young grasshopper on grass stalk03.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2009 at 10:54:50

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Low resolution, overexposed, low depth of field, overly tight crop. We have far better.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 10:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image from 2002, not bad. --Karel (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? Uploaded 2007. Can't see anything about 2002, the Canon 20D wasn't even made then. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist --Avala (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really "low resolution", good focus, unanimous support on original nomination. I don't think it needs purging just yet! --Tony Wills (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Unidentified. Too low resolution. I expect much better quality of a FP of an unidentified grasshopper to mitigate the loss of value for not being identified or much better descriptition, value and uniqeness or keeping a low resolution FP. The total value of this picture is far away from FP in my opinion. -- Korall (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Unidentified. Lycaon (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Unidentified and low resolution. --JalalV (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:80 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009 - edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2009 at 16:39:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

WARNING:

Some browsers may have trouble displaying this image at full resolution: This image has an unusually large number of pixels and may either not load properly or cause your browser to freeze. Downsampled versions are available here.

Info Second try for this image (first nomination). You may have better eyes than me, but I wasn't able to find the same kinds of defects than on my first nomination. Everything by me. --S23678 (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- S23678 (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The stitching indeed is much better. I still think you should upload a downsampled version for two reasons. First: a picture of 76 MB is not easy to handle and second: the image is not very sharp in the full resolution so you wouldn't lose much information by moderate downsampling, but quite on the contrary get rid of unnecessary information. --NEURO ^⇌ 19:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I withdrew my first nomination, my intention was to make a downsampled version of this image, but Michael Gäbler's comments made me think otherwise (I invite you to go see his comments). As for the difficulty of handling such a big image, you can use the power of wikimedia to downsample any images. As for the lack of sharpness, as I said in the previous nomination, the type of projection used is actually up-sampling the outer parts of the image while downsampling the center portions. Per the guidelines : "We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible." I understand that I might be pushing the limit a bit with the nomination, but since I have the high resolution image available, why not offer it to everyone?. --S23678 (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, but I think it would be nice to have a downscaled version that allows users to see more detail than visible in the thumbnail without having to wait for the huge version to load and be displayed. Something between in the range of 10 MP for example. --NEURO ^⇌ 20:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As said previously, look here (or make your own) ;) --S23678 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - In general people are not aware of that or do not want to spend the time doing it, there could at least be a link to such a version from the image page. Now you are basically left with the small preview or the huge original. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the picture and quality is amazing --Phyrexian (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great quality. --Banzoo (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kjetil_r 13:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jonathunder (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support O M G! Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEURO ^⇌ 21:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish I were able to see it, but my browser cannot load the image :(--Mbz1 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tried this, or using another browser? If not working, try saving the image on your computer. --S23678 (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow!-- TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although my browser can't load it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. The outstanding image quality and that high image resolution convinces me absolutely. --High Contrast (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 19:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 11:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The object, the size, the quality... unbelievable and breathtaking.--Adi (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulations that everything went off all right! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Aigues Mortes - Tour de Constance.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2009 at 18:22:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by imehling - uploaded by imehling - nominated by imehling -- Imehling (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Imehling (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support : technically very good (sharpness, color balance, contrast, DOF, no chromatic aberration...) ; might need a slight perspective adjustment ; composition is somewhat too static/too centered/too tighly cropped. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like an OZM-3 landmine to me. lol. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Have you got a more constructive contribution? --Imehling (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about this: Support - Per high detail (resolution), good lens apperture and nice angle of choice. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 14:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you, that's much better ;-) --Imehling (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Damërung--Mbz1 (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. And there's nothing in the picture that would make it "special". -- Petritap (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a 13th century builiding of some historical importance (see Aigues-Mortes). If you think that's nothing special...--Imehling (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dama dama 003.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2009 at 12:27:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Lilly M - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - extremely blurry in full resolution.--Avala (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you kidding? I'm asking seriously. D kuba (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[7]--Avala (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what? I don't care - your face, your problem. This is picture of whole deer, not only its head. The truth is you always pick holes in every photo. So sad. D kuba (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a little bit blurry, but to say "extremely" is an (extreme) exaggeration. Airwolf (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Airwolf. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 09:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop. —kallerna™ 10:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blur is indeed surely not extreme, but crop is too tight. Lycaon (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna.--Claus (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Don't care for the crop. Tiptoety ^talk 06:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special --Newman Luke (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-16 Solo Display Team Radom 2009 b.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2009 at 12:35:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś, Konflikty.pl - uploaded by Airwolf - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - motion blur and fringe. --Avala (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very original. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kosiarz-PL 07:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wpedzich (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Looks like I voted after the deadline, sorry. Wpedzich (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Wolf (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fort Point National Historic Site and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2009 at 03:09:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose This is a very atmospheric picture, but for a landscape shot the resolution is too low IMO. -- JovanCormac 09:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record you did support that one with a lower resolution.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but when I voted for that one last week I still felt bound by the guidelines, which basically say that everything above 2 Mpx is OK. But after the discussions and delisting nominations in the past days I realized that no one really cares about the guidelines. Instead, everyone applies their own personal standards. Because of that, I have decided that from now on, so will I. And I happen to believe that it should be possible to print a landscape photo to poster size without it looking blurry or pixelated, which is not possible with 2.6 Mpx. This is absolutely nothing personal, I love your work and even this candidate, but ~~I will not support landscapes or panoramas anymore~~ from now on I will oppose landscapes and panoramas unless they have at least 5 Mpx. -- JovanCormac 11:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is not personal :) , but I believe it is not excatly fair.The image you supported was taken with a better camera, than I used, which gives more room to play with the resolution. There's a difference between "not support" and "oppose". Anyway, if you decided to start your fight for the higher resolutions with my image, that's fine. Do not worry about that :)--Mbz1 (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there's a difference. I really meant the latter, though. Corrected in my comment. -- JovanCormac 11:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am very horrified to hear that Jovan. --Muhammad (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to start. 2 Mpx is a ridiculously low resolution for a landscape shot or panorama, when you cannot even buy a camera with less than 5 Mpx anymore. Commons is not (at least should not be) Wikipedia's image repository only. People will want to print out pictures, and 2 Mpx is sufficient for a top-quality postcard-sized print only. -- JovanCormac 13:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2000x1333 gives a good 27 inches wide picture at 72ppi. I think that's large enough for your wall :-) --Muhammad (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

72ppi is for web use. I print my photos at 300ppi, for print use, and I can say it is barely enough. Diti the penguin — 20:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most newspapers and publishers print at 72 and slightly above. Only very high class magazines print at 300. FWIW, a normal user may not even be able to tell the differences between the two. --Muhammad (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, from my years of experience in the print industry (both in high print quality and newspaper), 300 dpi is industry standard. Actually newspapers use up to 600 dpi for plate printing. NO ONE (and I assure you I'm correct) prints newspaper plates at 72 dpi. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, “minimum resolution for magazine-quality printing is 300ppi”. Diti the penguin — 17:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan specifically talked about printing posters, which are usually printed at lower dpi simply because they are viewed from greater distances, 72 to 150dpi often seems to be the requirement on websites of poster printers. Some do specify 300dpi for everything, I trust they don't print billboard sized posters :-). Yes Jovan , we have guidelines, but vote as you see fit, that's the beauty of crowd wisdom, there is no need to rein in the extreme views. I still don't know why you don't start a project (eg QI was started when there was a need for images suitable for printing a calendar) to highlight glossy A4 magazine resolution images, it would be a valuable resource. It could be as simple as tagging high resolution FPs and QIs, to a full blown project with its own criteria. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Muhammad (talk)
Support Regardless of the resolution, the photo is quite crisp enough and otherwise stunning. AlexAH (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jovan. --Kjetil_r 15:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for interest in my image and oppose vote from yet another user, who supported that nomination, the day light image with the same resolution. I do not consider opposes with that reason to be fair at all, I consider it to be biased, and that's why I guess, if one wants to oppose an image, the reason could always be found --Mbz1 (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovan, I'd like to thank you for killing my nomination. I'd say you've changed your mind rather drasticly after you called Aqwis complain about resolution in 4 images panorama that you nominated "pure nonsense", and quoting you from the same post I'd say: "I try not to think too much about those "injustices", because if I do they always make me mad..." Nothing personal:)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my “personal guidelines”. Until some leniency sets up on how we should reasonably apply the guidelines. As the other opposers, you'll notice that my vote is not at all based on the picture, but by something called WP:POINT. ;) I'm not smarter than other people. Diti the penguin — 20:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diti, you always could make me feel better :) I've decided to let the nominatation to proceed. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You really seem to have a fascination with the GGB. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do love the bridge, but the nominated image is not just another night shot of the bridge. It has EV because it shows Fort Point and the bridge together.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice picture, with proper resolution... why to oppose? --Leafnode 12:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. Maedin\^talk 14:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really a very nice picture. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lactarius indigo 48568.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2009 at 22:08:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The "indigo Lactarius", created by Dan Molter - uploaded by Sasata - nominated by Daniel78
Support -- Daniel78 (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp, too tight crop, noisy and blown sky highlights. Lycaon (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The crop seems enough wide for me. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 09:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition, per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 10:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough. Maedin\^talk 14:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LC-de (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

( Sorry just testing/verifying that the bot ignores some votes: ~~Support~~ {{neutral}} ) yes/Daniel78 (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Bad composition. I don't care for the random leaf in the upper right hand corner, it is very distracting. Tiptoety ^talk 06:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very original, good focus and exposure. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Lycaon. --Karel (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop, composition, distracting background elements. -- Petritap (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lactarius indigo 48568 edit.jpg[edit]

Support It shows key features of the mushroom well. The background elements are good for scale and showing the environment where it is found. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting enogh for me. --Korall (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

The chosen alternative is: File:Lactarius indigo 48568 edit.jpg

Image:Schloß Schweinsburg.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2009 at 22:08:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by je-str - uploaded by je-str - nominated by je-str -- Je-str (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Je-str (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but I believe you have some stitching errors in reflection.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very harsh and weird looking noise at contrast edges. (Roof/wall, Chimney). As well as some major stitching errors in the reflection. Otherwise a nice shot. -- Peipei (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Peipei --Phyrexian (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Je-str (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)je-str.[reply]

Image:Vinyl Albums.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2009 at 02:31:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Elberth - uploaded by Elberth - nominated by Elberth -- Elberth 00001939 (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elberth 00001939 (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Underexposed and bad composition. ZooFari 01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ZooFari -- Petritap (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Zoo. --Ikiwaner (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dark, poor composition --Leafnode 07:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barbary macaque and tourists.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 16:44:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Monkey nursing in public. created by Karyn Sig - nominated by Anon -- 122.169.90.223 16:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: much too small, overexposed. Yann (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Domestic Pigeon Flock Tree.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2009 at 14:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- 99of9 (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea but the sky is noisy and the pigeons are not sharp enough in my opinion. --Korall (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it so much, but Korall is right... --Phyrexian (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your reviews. I failed to denoise the background, which I've now uploaded. I don't think I can get any extra resolution on the pigeons, but I think it is sufficient given that there are 4 subjects. --99of9 (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much, the noise is better but I still cant support becuase of the lack of detail in the pigeons. Sorry. --Korall (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. --99of9 (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have to agree with Korall. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry.--Avala (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The outcome is clear enough already. 99of9 (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

File:Su-35MAKS.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2009 at 10:27:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

x300px|A Sukhoi Su-35 in flight during the MAKS Airshow near Moscow, Russia on Zhukovskiy LII air field.

Info created by MastermindPrime - uploaded by MastermindPrime - nominated by High Contrast -- High Contrast (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High Contrast (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ I love this one. The sheer artistry and grace of what is, for all intents and purposes, merely a lumbering machine. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Oppose sadly, as it's a great picture, but copyvio's aren't allowed. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Karel (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC) until the deletion request is closed.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close - this is a pretty clear case of copyright violation, this image was shot from a plane flying next to this one, the likelyhood of a self-credited image taken like this isn't very high, read deletion nomination, source for it was found on a desktop image website. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Copyright Violation! This image was taken from here. This is the company, that produces this model. --Niabot (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They also make the real thing. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is an attempt to get OTRS for the images from that company, the release information on their site is close to a free license sounding, so they're being contacted for explicit release under a free license. Possibly suspend this FP nomination until the outcome? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of Copyright violation. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A photographer between waves and mussels 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2009 at 03:33:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The image was cropped, but not downsampled
Info The person is not sharp because he moved back from incoming wave during this time exposure. He left his tripod and camera to get wet :)
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blur to not-blur ratio too big --Leafnode 15:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the wave the image was taken, there was no any post-processing. Of course there is much more blur in the waves crashing ashore then the other ones. BTW thank you for you comment. I was interested to get some feedback for the image because I do like the composition of that one.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm talking about blur related to long exposure. I think it's a very interesting photo, but too 'artsy' to be a FP on commons. --Leafnode 16:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support But I can't understand why the photographer hasn't manned up and gone swimming. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it was a good image! It is not passing :(, but your support means a lot :). I believe the guy did not go swimming because after all his camera was not underwater

BTW looking at him I was thinking about you and how you're taking similar shots with your camera just few inches above the water :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my camera has had quite a few splashes from bigger than usual waves. Seems fine. I usually carry a cloth with me to wipe the salt water off. I have one or two of these somewhere. Should get into the habit of packing them. The picture is a fairly realistic depiction of how I take seascapes (close with a wide angle). Noodle snacks (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I was right, when I was thinking about you, while taking the image! I will upload few more images of the same and let you know. BTW has somebody ever taken an image of you taken image of the waves?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I have one of a wave about to hit me and my camera at here on the same night as Clifton beach 4/5, but that is about it. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You should have told the guy to stay still. :) -- Petritap (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been really boring, if he did :)--Mbz1 (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - if the photographer is the subject of this photo than he should be standing still.--Avala (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the photo is the mood of photographing a long time exposure images of the ocen waves :)--Mbz1 (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info This image was taken before the one above. As you could see he moved his tripod closer to the waves later.
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blur to not-blur ratio too big --Leafnode 15:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LightEye.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2009 at 02:31:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andres G - uploaded by Andres G - nominated by Andres G -- Tucayo (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tucayo (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC) - Probably my best picture.[reply]
Comment Uh, did you look at the FP criteria (above) before nominating? Your picture is below the acceptable resolution, and while it has a nice composition, it's not hard to duplicate. Therefore, there aren't any mitigating factors. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, I don't know whether the resolution matters much, it is basically original artwork ... I don't think it quite falls within the scope of Commons though, unless the author is wiki-notable. Alternatively if it displays some phenomena or is a good example of something? ... --Tony Wills (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, it's an example of a photograph technique using light, speed and colour. Andres G
Comment Very close to the resolution limit, 1.97 MP. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, maybe VI as an illustration of a phenomenon/type of art, but not a FP. --Leafnode 07:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LightSpiral.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2009 at 22:17:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andres G - uploaded by Andres G - nominated by Andres G -- Tucayo (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tucayo (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose because of the crop. Since you are the creator of this file, you can easily remake it so it looks better. But good overall technical quality otherwise (no noise at all). Diti the penguin — 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No wow factor, along with a bad crop. Tiptoety ^talk 19:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I uploaded a new version. Tucayo
Comment Colourfull, original light artwork, but not a very even spiral even (having them on a string and letting it wind or unwind around a cylinder might work). Many (many, many, many) years ago I saw a photo made using coloured lights and long exposures to represent the orbits of electrons around an atom's nucleus. I think the nucleus was made up of red and blue lights, and the electrons were red long exposure circular trails. Of course the orbits were in three dimensions not just all on one plane - must have used multiple exposures so he didn't tangle the wires :-). It was an impressive and startling photo. Now, I'm not suggesting you do that (well you could, but people would probably complain it was an outdated model), but it might inspire you to think of something you can create that could be used in a wikimedia project. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose photo should be self-explanatory - this one isn't. It looks like one minute of playing with MS Paint. --Leafnode✉ 09:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lunar Lander Model.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2009 at 11:37:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This 1963 model depicts an early Apollo lunar lander concept, called a "bug."
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very interesting and I'll be happy to support, but there's a bit of...I don't know what... behind the lander. Is that meant to be there? See annotations. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what it is, it looks a bit like a fingerprint. Originalwana (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's more likely a moiré pattern. A quick look at the background shows clearly that they are using a fabric (out of focus background lights reveal that). This kind of semi-transparent fabric usually induce moiré patterns in photos. --Banzoo (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like nobody here has done any film scanning. These are "Newton rings" - a result of squeezing negative between glass frames. This is a mistake. Possible solutions: 1. scan without glass; 2. retouch. It is not supposed to be there on a good quality photograph. The film grain is reasonable (it is not "noise"). I'd support if the rings weren't there, this is a good photograph. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noise. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fatima Spar and The Freedom Fries, Vienna 2008 (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2009 at 01:52:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded + nominated by Tsui (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the mood of the scene. -- Tsui (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ! —kallerna™ 09:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The guy in the background /Daniel78 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel78 --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background -- Petritap (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comments are interesting. To me the musician in the background, his looking at the singer, is what adds to the special mood of the picture. But tastes and opinions obviously differ ... --Tsui (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support strong expression of the atmosphere --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rainbow Mountains (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2009 at 12:30:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Chmee2 -- Chmee2 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but it's IMO too soft. —kallerna™ 19:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Reaperman (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient technical quality for FP. --NEURO ^⇌ 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks really good on thumbnail, but in a close-up it's exactly as kallerna said. -- H005 22:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a very striking image. The softness on the microscopic scale wouldn't bother me unless I was printing a huge print. --99of9 (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. -- Petritap (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support high quality image --Tlusťa (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality --S23678 (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russian honor guard at Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Alexander Garden welcomes Michael G. Mullen 2009-06-26 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2009 at 09:32:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MC1 Chad J. McNeeley, USN - uploaded by BrokenSphere - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info As far as I can tell, the white specks are snow.
Comment I like the symbolism in this one. Perhaps people in Russia are looking in a different direction, beyond the violent past, to a new future...
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yep, works for me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cool image. Tiptoety ^talk 19:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! I love the raindrops. --NEURO ^⇌ 20:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good use of DOF --ianaré (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I particularly like the focus Newman Luke (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lookatthis (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent use of DOF. --Korall (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 13:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Beirut Panorama - 19th century, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2009 at 01:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Maison Bonfils - uploaded and nominated by Banzoo -- Banzoo (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Banzoo (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly suggest renaming the image. Using not only a non-latin but an RTL script in conjunction with an LTR script (the "File:" prefix) can be very problematic on non-unicode systems, and only a small fraction of the world's population will be able to read the name as Beirut-Alqarn 19 Black-White, while almost everyone can read latin letters. -- JovanCormac 10:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your opinion, but when this file was first downloaded, it was meant to be used in Arabic Wikipedia, but later thought it would be valuable for other projects too. The use of english filenames in the Arabic free encyclopedia is painful as you described (to switch from RTL to LTR). It is worth to mention that renaming a file is not a direct task to do once uploaded, and having multiple copies of the same big file is a waste of resources. I think the FPC in commons should adopt English WP style to have a title for the nomination different from the filename. It would be also of great help if Wikimedia drops the suffix requirement in the filename and use the file header instead to determine the file type, and to give the ability to include multiple filenames for different writing systems for the same file.--Banzoo (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ianaré (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't care about names in other languages and/or writing system than the english one, description of image is the thing to look at for understanding what an image depict. Support for historic relevance and gargantuan size, however not top quality. --Phyrexian (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive picture, but there are still a lot of "dust spots" to remove. Yann (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the picture makes it hard for one individual to spot all the dirt inside. Would you add notes on the dirt you spotted to clean those that went unnoticed? (You are welcome to clean it as well!) --Banzoo (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a few spots, which would be acceptable. These are mostly visible on the background mountains and on the sea, but there are all over. Yann (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canyon de Chelly White House Ruin Close View 2006 09 07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2009 at 13:14:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by AFBorchert - uploaded by AFBorchert - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! I really like it. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Imehling (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great location. Durova (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

File:Helen KellerA.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2009 at 19:44:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Helen Keller1.jpg by Durova -- Durova (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Durova (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jonathunder (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Clyde flats in Wortley during sunset.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 20:28:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by (uploaded from Flickr) - uploaded by Mtaylor848 - nominated by Mtaylor848 -- Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Diti the penguin — 20:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FEMA - 5399 - Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 09-28-2001 in New York.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2009 at 14:41:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andrea Booher/FEMA - uploaded by BotMultichillT (batch-upload) - nominated by Juliancolton -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I uploaded about 20.000 images in this batch upload and this certainly one of the best images. Multichill (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for uploading and the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like this picture, but IMHO low quality for FP, sorry --Phyrexian (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Love the composition, but Phyrexian is right about the quality not being the best. Just my opinion, but it looks a little soft and washed out. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the comments. I'm not sure I see these issues, however. It looks rather sharp from where I'm sitting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- No problem. Always happy to give some useful feedback. I'm viewing it on a 24 inch LCD, adjusted as per the direction on the commons calibration page. All LCDs are different, so it might just be my screen. That's why I'm voting neutral, rather than opposing. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the composition far outweighs any negatives of perceived low quality (although it looks fine to me). AlexAH (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird perspective effect and as Phyrexian. Lycaon (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - poor contrast.--Avala (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 10:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting, unclear subject. Maedin\^talk 14:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the subject is the overall atmosphere following the attacks, rather than a specific subject. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture is incredible. The quality is amazing, as well as the sharpness. But for a second, you should not look at the quality, but the story. This picture illustrates the event that happened, and shows the heroic men and women who worked endlessly at ground zero and will never be forgotten - mainly, because of pictures like these. Delvaldawgz 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very outstanding, and nice resolution. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Inside Balconies Cave at Pinnacles National Monument 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2009 at 17:48:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...Stiched? Why the resolution is then so low? —kallerna™ 11:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an overlap. The thing is that there was very dark inside the cave, and when I took a single shot, the sky was very, very overexposed. So I ended up taking few shots with a different settings.HDR did not work because I've got the person only on one of the shots.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for explaining. :) —kallerna™ 17:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support —kallerna™ 11:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image doesn't really appeal to me. Also the grovel seems a bit overexposed and blurry. --NEURO ^⇌ 21:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the person in the picture (snapshot-like feel). -- JovanCormac 09:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that nomination of mine was opposed because there was no scale. Now I tried to do my very best to have a scale, and it is opposed again. Oh well...Let me please assure you that this image is anything, but "snapshot"--Mbz1 (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The person in the picture is necessary for to scale it. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Idea and composition are ok but the post-processing is too obvious for me. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I cannot argue with your observations about post-processing. The image(s) were very hard to take, and eve harder to post-process. Even to carry tripod there was a challenge. I found that image that could give you some idea how it was (I am not sure it is the very place I took my image) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with AngMoKio. --Estrilda (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support interest--663h (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per 663h; I study geology and we need better free pictures, like this one. Diti the penguin — 10:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too post-processed. --Chrumps (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Diti --Imehling (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monument Door, Montmartre Cemetery, Paris.jpg

File:Panorama of Uppsala castle gardens spring 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2009 at 20:31:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Peipei - uploaded by Peipei - nominated by Peipei -- Peipei (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peipei (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Plrk (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Quality issues : sharpness somewhat low, visible chromatic abberation. But, as a mitigating reason, it does have a wow factor. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even us humans would have a hard time counting that as a vote, could you perhaps just leave us with one to choose from (it is either support, neutral, or oppose). (At the moment our hard working bot will count that as two votes, and if it is sensible, discount both :-) Thanks --Tony Wills (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot could in the future be improved to detect the ambiguity and clearly mark it or notify the voter, however currently it will just blindly count them both and it would be up to the reviewer to resolve the issue. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh), ok, let's be binary (or ternary, in that case). I guess striking out the confusing part of my statement wouldn't have helped either, because the bot doesn't see if a vote template is between <s> and </s> tags... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out would work fine, the bot ignores everything inside <s> tags. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not sharp enough. Maedin\^talk 11:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the composition is exceptional --S23678 (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 06:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal Rocks and Point Bonita Lighthouse .jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2009 at 00:56:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please notice seagulls on the rock. The exposure time was 40/1 sec (40). and seagulls never moved :) Please also notice the bright ligth across the Bay. It is Point Bonita Lighthouse.
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really wish I was good a photography... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beauty out of this world. --Korall (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful pic, but not FP for me --Phyrexian (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please spell it out why in your opinion the image is not FP. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution for FP in my opinion, the rock is too small. Though is a very beautiful pic :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that right? Low resolution? Well, maybe it is my problem. After all the resolution of my image is only 2 times greater than the one you supported :-)--23:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but IMHO is a different kind of pic, the seagulls and their rock are too small for me to be FP. It's just my opinion (and only mine I see :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. IMO your oppose reason for the resolution is very unfair and against the guidelines, and BTW the seagulls are extra. They not only provide a great scale for the rock, but also great EV. Who knew they would sit still for 40 seconds! :)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an exaggeration to say the seagulls provide "great" EV. After all, you can barely see them in the picture. -- Petritap (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They provide EV for two reasons: they are good for the scale and it is an interesting behavior (birds do not move much after sunset). What I am trying to say is that the image you supported is very beautiful, and I supported it too, but IMO my image has much bigger EV because of the seagulls as I explained above and because of the lighthouse.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they´re barely visible doesn´t give any extra quality to the image, but it does give EV. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 14:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NormanB (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I really, really like it. --Kjetil_r 00:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not as good as other "long exposure" -photos and I haven't supposed even the best photos of this type. —kallerna™ 10:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it.--Claus (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks unnatural for me, both for the colors and that strange 'aura'
- Question - Is it oversaturated? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not oversaturated. It is just a long exposure (40 seconds) that gives such colors. I am not sure what 'aura' you are talking about, but if it is the one around the rock, it is only slow motion sea w:foam from the crashing waves.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Per above. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 14:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chrumps (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very unworldly Newman Luke (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stadion słubice 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 19:33:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fsopolonezcaro - uploaded by Fsopolonezcaro - nominated by Tomem -- Tomem (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good photo, nice object in beautiful city! -- Tomem (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown sky, fringe around the crown of the trees, some noise (esp. under the arches and in the grass in the foreground), lack of "depth" in dynamic range (there's no true black, even in the shadows of the trees ?!), shallow sharpness. And it is tilted clockwise. A good picture, very suitable for documentary purposes, yet not an FP. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 01:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In different browsers this picture is displayed differently. The best quality is in Internet Explorer or Safari. This stadium is a very important monument so purely object is more important than the grass or the environment. I made a few small patches and now graphics isn't so noisy. --Tomem (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean because of color profiles ? Looks exactly the same in IE and Opera for me. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Even if the sky is not the main subject, it should not be blown in a FI. --99of9 (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Leafnode 07:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Extremly low quality, uninteresting composition --S23678 (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While there's nothing wrong with the image, it neither has great photographic technical merits, nor provokes any great interest for the user. I am inclined to let slight imperfections pass if the image type/subject is rare or usually hard to get a decent image (a performing musician/unrepeatable stunt), however I feel on this occassion a better image could be attained. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 06:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Delaware Bay Vinckeboons 14.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2009 at 16:42:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Johannes Vingboons - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Delaware Bay Vinckeboons.jpg by NuclearWarfare, Durova, and Adam Cuerden. Compressed courtesy copy available at File:Delaware Bay Vinckeboons 14 courtesy copy.jpg.-- Durova (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Delaware Bay in 1639.
Support -- Durova (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NW (Talk) 16:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! -- MJJR (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEURO ^⇌ 21:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though it woudl have been nice to have been notified that a restoration I worked on had been nominated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gold dust day gecko.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2009 at 18:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cuteness overload! *v* A very rare point of view! Diti the penguin — 21:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO too noisy, also bit small. Nice composition. —kallerna™ 09:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small?! I believe it is 7.4 megapixels.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thats true, but the main subject is kinda small. —kallerna™ 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really so cute! Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice ! - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 11:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely, but would not it be better to crop out part of the leaf below? --Javier ME (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it could make the composition unbalanced, but you're welcome to make the edit and nominate the image, if you'd like. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Phyrexian (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great ! --ianaré (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 14:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Newman Luke (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panorama Torunia (Panorama of Torun).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2009 at 20:09:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michał Sulik - uploaded by Michał Sulik - nominated by Michał Sulik -- Michał Sulik (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michał Sulik (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good QI, but eventually neither the technical quality nor the subject are extraordinary. Good standard, but not FP. -- H005 22:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As H005. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- User:--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice panorama, but that's it. -- Petritap (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a panorama. —kallerna™ 11:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice panorma and that is it :) GerardM (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but uninteresting composition --S23678 (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset at Land's end in San Francisco.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2009 at 14:34:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there's no trait in this picture that would make it better than thousands of similar sunset photos. --Leafnode 14:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've nominated a similar image File:Sunset from Sutro Bath in San Francisco.jpg on QI and user Ischa1 commented on it like that: "It is one of the best sunset pictures I've ever seen! NICE!" Of course after that comment I became so proud of myself that I've decided to nominate one on FP too :)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QI != FP ;) But keep up the good work - I really enjoy looking at your photos. --Leafnode 16:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Amazing! (Don't listen to critics, go on with your wonderful pictures). Yann (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the mood and colors. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A worthy sunset image--almost a painting! --JalalV (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support For Yann and JalalV. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An excellent picture of a sunset. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Just another sunset really" :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. —kallerna™ 11:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a great observation - a long time exposure ot the clouds and the waves is unsharp :)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rocks are unsharp too. They wouldn't be moving throughout the exposure. Flying Freddy (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Freddy could fly, surely rocks could move too

--Mbz1 (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support JukoFF (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is really an outstanding piece of art in my opinion. --Korall (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big wow mitigates quality issues IMO --S23678 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trier Jesuitenkirche BW 2.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2009 at 11:36:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lookatthis (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Kosiarz-PL 07:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 99of9 (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality and subject not FP for me. Maedin\^talk 11:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but nothing exceptional --S23678 (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice organs --Kmenicka (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp on the window and underexposed. -- JovanCormac 09:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frans Post - Gezicht op Olinda, Brazilië.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 12:17:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View of Olinda, Brazil. Created by Frans Post - nominated by Barun -- 122.169.90.223 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 122.169.90.223 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in if you want to vote. Yann (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Resolution is far too low.

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

-- JovanCormac 09:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mallorca - Dragonera.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2009 at 13:59:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by imehling - uploaded by imehling - nominated by imehling -- Imehling (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Imehling (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great view, but there's a lot of CA in the rocks and no geocode. -- H005 16:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing outstanding --Leafnode✉ 07:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Really nice, but as mentioned above I don't think it's of a particularly extraordinary quality. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the noise levels are too high for a day picture --S23678 (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again I would disagree with the reason for excluding it from featured picture candidacy. There isn't a great deal of noise on the picture, certainly no more than one would expect. I think it is one of the strongest contenders, but that's only my humble opinion. Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is ok but then replace the FPX template as noted in the template otherwise the bot will autoclose this as "not featured". /Daniel78 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you mixing clouds and noise again? --S23678 (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you deem the noise here inacceptable you'll have to decline virtually every landscape image here. This is rather low noise and certainly not a reason to FPX it. -- H005 21:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wanted to be more specific than just saying "low quality", and yet not give a laundry list of the defects I saw, so I went for the main quality issue : noise. But you are right, I realize that I should have given more meat to my reasons, since noise alone is not enough for FPX. --S23678 (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imehling (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion gets to stupid for me. Maybe S23678 should clean his screen.

File:Blind man carrying a paralysed man.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2009 at 18:53:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tancrède Dumas - uploaded, restored and nominated by Banzoo. Original picture before restoration can be found at File:Blind and paralised.tif-- Banzoo (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Banzoo (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sad show with the strong emotional factor -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Korall (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can hardly fathom that this is / was for real. GerardM (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing historical and emotional value. -- JovanCormac 09:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historic photo document. --AM (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Kenyon Cox nude study2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2009 at 22:26:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kenyon Cox - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Kenyon Cox nude study.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Durova (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good restoration. Yann (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marvelous! Rastrojo _(D•ES) 14:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Highly unnatural colouring for a graphite image. I have prepared an alternative version, which, for convenience, I'll nominate separately, since it's late in this nomination. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is a better version maybe this should be withdrawn, otherwise we will need to replace it. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Adam Cuerden, support Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Kenyon_Cox_nude_study3.jpg. -- JovanCormac 11:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As it is not withdrawn I am also opposing to avoid getting both versions featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That can't happen according to our rules, but I want to see the right one get Featured. -- JovanCormac 09:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, but disregarding the rules it can happen, the bot closes it and someone approves. Just trying to avoid unnecessary manual cleanup work. /Daniel78 (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This version is continuing to receive consensus support at a sister project due to loss of texture in the alternate edit. So letting the candidacy continue. Durova (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So this will become another case where two different versions of a picture are Featured on separate projects? Let's hope not... -- JovanCormac 12:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maschikuliturm.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2009 at 16:02:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Machicolation tower (Maschikuliturm) of the Fortress Marienberg, Würzburg

Info created by Carport - uploaded by Carport - nominated by Carport -- Carport (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Carport (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lookatthis (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply a very good picture. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing bad, but not exceptional. Light conditions are not optimal for such a picture --S23678 (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per S23678. Resolution is too low as well. -- JovanCormac 09:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition - this angle does not present this building well --Leafnode✉ 11:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice shot, hight ER Wladyslaw (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, good quality and nice motive, but I don't like crop and it looks a litle bit titled. --ka ʁs tn 20:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wildfire in Yellowstone Natinal Park produces Pyrocumulus clouds1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2009 at 23:27:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very neat. I really like the clouds. Tiptoety ^talk 19:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Hasn't this been nominated (and declined) before? -- H005 21:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good memory! A different version was nominated and declined here. I ajusted the colors a litlle bit now. I did not want to upload over the other file because it was nominated (not by me) and declined on English wikipedia too here. I decided, that, if somebody liked the image enough to nominate it on Eglish Wikipedia FP, I'd better keep that version too :) Thanks for fixing my spelling :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a typo in the file name that should be fixed. -- H005 21:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry to spoil the show again but I still think (as in the previous nomination) that this photo does not show reality due to over-post-processing. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen many wildfires, but only once pyrocumulus clouds. I believe you are much luckier than I am. You've seen lots of them, and know quite well how they look in reality :)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have seen smoke of wildfires in California (in 2007) and South East Asia. But that is not the reason why I oppose. The reason why I oppose is because i know how clouds look that were "dramatized" with Photoshop. You obviously reduced it a bit since your last nomination...but it is for me still more than obvious. Furthermore this is sth you do with a lot of your pictures, which I regret bcs you don't just falsify reality but you make a good picture bad. I might give a pro to this picture if you would upload it without the post-processing. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aqwis (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality problems in the sky, looks like posterization from overprocessing. --S23678 (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

file:Calcite-Maroc-UV.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2009 at 19:06:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Calcite - South Morocco -(5.9cm) A:Daylight B:Ultraviolet light

Info created by Didier Descouens - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC), nominated by Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ra'ike T C 09:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good educational value. --Korall (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. Ceranthor 11:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Highly valuable picture, but I'd prefer it with the letters removed. They're ugly, and unneccessary as well since it is quite clear which is which. -- JovanCormac 09:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Without the letters, he may believe that these are two different specimens. I'm not an artist, naturalist only. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Extermination of Evil Sendan Kendatsuba.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2009 at 08:49:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown - uploaded by Bamse - nominated by Bamse -- bamse (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- bamse (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it so much, but look at notes I've made, there is a misplaced line (I don't know how tell it in english, sorry)... can you repair it? --Phyrexian (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to repair it. bamse (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good scan. Ceranthor 11:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question There is a ~10px black strip on the bottom edge. What is it? It doesn't look like it's part of the actual painting. -- JovanCormac 09:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bamberger Dom BW 14.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2009 at 14:06:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong image noise. -- JovanCormac 16:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Berthold Werner (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Oops.[reply]

File:Blackmoorfoot reservoir in the wind.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2009 at 17:00:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by (uploaded from Flickr)- uploaded by Mtaylor848 - nominated by Mtaylor848 -- Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: ~~image resolution is below 2 megapixels.~~No longer the case, but the quality of the picture is a FPX motive as well. --S23678 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Diti the penguin — 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dont want to support really but now its over 4MP.--Korall (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request Please take my picture out of this competition. I take snapshots for my own amusement and post them on Flickr. I don't intend them to be "featured" anywhere, nor commented on by a bunch of self-appointed critics. Tdgreen (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to choose a different license in the future then. CC-BY, which you published the photo under, allows use for any purpuse, provided that you are credited for the image. As Korall has pointed out, the lack of support means that the candidate will likely be closed in a few days, but if that wasn't the case, I can pretty much guarantee that the FPC community wouldn't comply with your request. -- JovanCormac 12:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If noone supports, it will soon be removed. Dont worry. --Korall (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here --S23678 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle of Gibraltar 1607.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 16:39:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

InfoThe Explosion of the Spanish Flagship during the Battle of Gibraltar, 25 April 1607. Oil on canvas. - uploaded by Cornelis Claesz. van Wieringen - nominated by Anon
Comment This is an interlaced JPEG. Have we fixed the bug that broke thumbnailing of those after a while? It's also a bit under the required 2 megapixels. Marvellous image, though, and I'd love to see some version of it featured. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Beautiful painting, but at that resolution it'll get Featured only over my dead body :) -- JovanCormac 11:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Citrus paradisi (Grapefruit, pink).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 06:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by א (Aleph) - uploaded by א (Aleph) - nominated by JalalV -- JalalV (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If those 0.4mpx food pictures haven't been delisted yet, then this one definitely needs to be featured!
Support -- JalalV (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The white balance seems to be bad. It has a red tint. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my thoght when watching this, it definitely needs to be fixed. -- H005

16:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - not sharp enough as well as the background issues.--Avala (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just reduce it to 0.4mpx, and it should be sharp enough! ;-) Seriously though, I have no strong attachment to this picture, but I really think we can do better than the thumbnail-sized lemon and kiwi we have featured. If anyone wants to edit this one, or upload better fruit pictures, I'd say it is about time. --JalalV (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Red tint as mentioned. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've uploaded version with tint removed --Leafnode✉ 11:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of Arms of Siam (1873-1910).svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2009 at 22:17:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sodacan - uploaded by Sodacan - nominated by Connormah -- Connormah (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great work. -- Connormah (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. ZooFari 01:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Nice work! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Kosiarz-PL 07:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kmenicka (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost every coat of arms by that author should be Featured. -- JovanCormac 06:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gull in Gibraltar.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 16:49:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Gull in Gibraltar.JPG

A Yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis) in Gibraltar created by RedCoat nominated by Anon -- 122.169.90.223 16:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice composition but the quality is not really there. There chromatic aberration around the gull and the general grainyness makes it a not for me. Sorry. --Korall (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality --Avala (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is is a picture of a gull or of Gibraltar? -- Blago Tebi (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above; not very interesting --Leafnode✉ 10:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photographing a model.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2009 at 03:47:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info the image was taken against the setting sun, and it was very interesting to see how the model was light up by using of the screen. I've never seen it before :)
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it so much. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! Yann (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Moise Nicu (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one Mila :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely! Diti the penguin — 20:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love how the model pops out of the photo. —kallerna™ 13:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some would say this shows preparations for extensive photoshopping, that it's almost pornography and that it promotes objectification of women. Thankfully, I'm not one of those people. I find it to be one of the best pictures among those nominated within the last two or three months. Wolf (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography ???--Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take no offence, I'm just quoting. Wolf (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info No doubts the guys, who were taken the images made some preparations. I happened to be there by a pure accident, and just used the opportunity. Practically no PS post-processing was done except noise reduction and cropping. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think Wolf was talking about the magazine or whoever was doing the shoot photoshopping the image to make it look better, not you Mila. ;) Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting to see how these kind of shots are being made. --Korall (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great image. Did someone happen to find the final result of this shoot? I wonder how good that image is ;-) Multichill (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Jan Garbarek-2007.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2009 at 21:01:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by =Dimitris Papazimouris from Halandri, Greece - uploaded by Jocian - nominated by Jocian -- Jocian (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jocian (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice try, good point of view. But a overexposed forehead is a nogo in a portrait. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks for Review. The photo workshop in the German Wikipedia has drawn up an alternative version, which, for convenience, I'll nominate separately, since it's late in this nomination. --Jocian (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diaea dorsata 02 (MK).JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 13:10:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everthing by -- Leviathan (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Leviathan (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Blurry, noisy, overexposed.

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

-- JovanCormac 15:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]