Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2014 at 04:43:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bibliothèque humaniste de Sélestat 21 janvier 2014-97.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bibliothèque humaniste de Sélestat 21 janvier 2014-97.jpg
Support Good job both to the photographer and the discoverer :) I just have the impression that it is a bit ccw tilted Poco221:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2014 at 22:42:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Durdle Door Dorset Sunset.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Durdle Door Dorset Sunset.jpg
Comment A relief to see a good picture?? super FP?? I haven't seen so much sucking up here before. You really are the Lord of the Flies. Correct me if I'm wrong but this picture was a alternative of previous nomination and now you have nominated it again? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No; the nom. I mentioned above is at EN which has different review criteria. My comment above is also per my personal POV; not about its quality on aesthetic aspects. There is not a requirement that a reviewer need to be capable to take competitive pictures. But he had a lot of FPs earlier; and this make a Flickr Explore #1 recently. Jee09:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sea is unnaturally dark and the same with half of the cliff. I haven't been there myself but a quick google search gives me pictures with much better lighting, for example here. Apart from this, a long exposure would certainly add some wow to the photo but now it's just a snapshot. I would expected something more from someone with so "high standards" and extremely critical towards others. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not make personal attacks. You should refer to comment on the image. It is the best way to bring this section, the most balanced, technically and objectively as possible. I invite you to reflect and stop this negative attitude. On the other hand, from the technical point of view, the example you have shown me a picture much more digitally modified than the current nomination (look the sky and overexposition, for example). I lived on the coast for 30 years and have seen similar colors to this photo. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wished a MUCH tighter crop at the top (see note) and a wider crop at the right. I am unsure if the light is fortunate for that motive. Most parts of the relief are in shadow. Contrary the warm light on the sand is nice. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Composition is very good, but I am shared, IMO it's a little bit oversatured (yellow, orange and red), I can particularly see it on the clothes of the characters but however the color give the mood. Anyway a nice image. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2014 at 22:35:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I love the colors, but the composition just comes across as too random. For this sort of thing a video might work better (but then of course it has copyright issues). As it is I can't tell from the image alone that the cranes are performing a ballet. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Daniel: Colors are nice, but the composition and motive do not work for me. The crop at the right seems very random to me. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand that the motion blur is necessary to convey the sense of movement of the crane arms, but the verticals are out of focus too. Sorry, but not convinced about the composition or quality. --DAJF (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, thats nothing like blurry cranes (I’m not talking about the motion, but there’s nothing in focus) and overexposed lights. Nothing special at all. No idea what that picture wants to tell me. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 04:38:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Shirakawago.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shirakawago.jpg
Comment It needs some perspective correction (see bottom left) and I wonder whether the top left corner has been darkened in the postprocessing, it looks a bit strange. On the other side the composition is great, so I am ready to support if my comments are fixed/clarified Poco211:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice job technically getting the lighting to work, but unfortunately for me it comes out too cluttered (to the point of confusing me as to what I'm supposed to getting from this), plus the snow on the house at the left seems blown. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 02:03:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tamme-Lauri Tamm suvel.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tamme-Lauri Tamm suvel.jpg
The Estonian contingent has had a disproportionate impact on the results here and on possibly the POTY, but I would be surprised there is any kind of puppetry going on. National pride is not yet a crime. Would hate to be proven wrong though. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.101.124 (talk • contribs)
Hello Mr. Saffron Blaze, I don't belong to Estonia. I just thought that this was a pic worthy of FP status and I just nominated it. I am neither the sockpuppet of the uploader nor biased towards Estonia. I was browsing through the user page of the uploader and found this pic. Nikhil (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Italic text is copied from another page and in not a comment by Saffron Blaze to this nomination. Just wanted to warn Estonians for voting here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.101.124 (talk • contribs)
Well firstly, it is not great style to post unsigned comments from IPs. I think it would be for the better of this project, if we had people from all countries as engaged as the Estonians here. I cannot speak for POTY, but I see not a lot of issues going on FP. If people think that images should not promoted, they have to oppose - simple as that, I do not think that there are enough people from any country here to get FPs through on their own. --DXR (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Edit: I was not aware about the ongoing issue at the talk page. However that does not change my opinion since it is a special issue involving two users, not an entire country... --DXR (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, DXR. Whoever is editing from that IP, I think it is not in the interest of Wikimedia Commons to write a reckless comment about bias towards a country without logging in. As I said, I nominated the pic here only when I thought that this would be worthy of being an FP. It had nothing to do with my nationality or that it was a pic from Estonia. One can point out any technical flaws in the nomination without logging in, but please stop making prejudiced comments. Nikhil (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2014 at 23:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Peña la Cruz, Pinares de Rodeno (in English Cross Rock, Sandstone Pine Forest) is a protected landscape than spans 6 829,05 ha and is distributed over the municipalities of Albarracín, Bezas and Gea de Albarracín, province of Teruel, Aragón, Spain. All by me, Poco223:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2014 at 17:52:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
The EXIF data says "Saturation=High" so it has been boosted a bit, probably in-camera. However, I will confirm the colours can be vivid on a bright autumn day and some adjustment of saturation is quite normal. I guess the turquoise sky next to the orange slopes is a bit clashing in terms of colour harmony. -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a beautiful landscape but the composition isn't working for me. The cloud keeps taking my attention off the land. The smoke is a fire rather than a steam train, which is a shame. The path isn't successfully leading the eye. I'd like to see a bit more of the lake and less of the path. The 4:3 ratio doesn't help I think. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn’t know there was such a thing like right and wrong smoke sources. Since there is no railway line even near this place, a steam train would be much wronger a source IMO. Is there a list of the goodness of smoke sources I can refer to before taking my next photo of a wrong one? --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? "The smoke is a fire rather than a steam train, which is a shame"? I can see no point in putting a steam train besides that hedged wall – far off any railway line! – just to please the eye. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kreuzschnabel: Even if you don't talk about the smoke source, the picture still has other problems, such as the crop and oversaturation. Hope you can understand. I'm not insulting you or your photograph, it's just a comment and my opinion. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 15:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2014 at 20:49:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Blue tit front and back-lit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blue tit front and back-lit.jpg
Oppose Focus is IMHO acceptable but this picture looks strange to me, have you reworked the bokeh with a noising mask? to me the bird looks isolated from the enviroment, especially around the head. Poco221:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment - I've done some background noise reduction via a mask, but nothing drastic. The isolation from the environment is caused by a very strong backlight from sun reflected off a window, and combined with the facing side getting the direct sunlight is part of the reason I like it so much. If it was just backlit you'd lose contrast in the subject, but here you don't - this does look different, I'll grant you. This here was one that got away (and in a slightly different spot along the same branch), but also shows the same backlit effect. The light was reflected off a small window, and only lasted a few minutes to illuminate this particular spot --Baresi franco (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]Example of the front/backlight
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2014 at 10:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MatsaluSuitsuJõgi.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MatsaluSuitsuJõgi.jpg
Yes, any other user can unflip them but can you be sure the images really are flipped? Even if you tried to locate the places you probably would not be able to recognize the views in nature. This shows how absurd the discussion really is. The sequence of trees or stones doesn't matter. It is not a deception. There are no heritage protection object in these pictures. The flip does not change the nature, the atmosphere nor the quality of the site. I don't know about you but I'm not a google street-view photographer and I'm not environmental copyist. Since my work doesn't fit yours standard, I will not contribute anymore. It must be a relief to many of you. Wish you all the best. -- (unsigned)
Oppose If this one is flipped copy of existing FP (just positioned very slightly different) then I'm annoyed the nominator has tried to fool us into promoting two nearly identical pictures at FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't spot that. Still, having two mirror images will lead to these mistakes. Which is why I also don't support requesting the "original" be uploaded in cases where the flip doesn't matter. -- Colin (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This one is different as there is an existing FP of the same image. This should not have been nominated. However, it is my opinion this is a superior edit. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know about the satellite image but I have actually been at Suitsu and it seems to me that this one is truthful and the other picture is flipped. But I could be wrong. This one just seems more genuine. I guess satellites never lie. In either case, I don't feel deceived. --Rutake (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 12:22:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nissan Altima at Salton Sea 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nissan Altima at Salton Sea 2013.jpg
Weak Support IMHO, the lighting is excellent and quality is decent but the composition could have been better. I wish the car could have been captured front-on rather than side-on.Nikhil (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Pro: Light works well, nice scenery; Con: 15mm equiv. makes the rear of the car superlong, not sure about the gap between palmtree and car. --DXR (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DXR: I've very corrected stretching very moderately. Keep in mind that the car is quite long :) I like the gap between palmtree and car - it brings some tension into the photo. I've used wide-angle to include as much as possible from the interesting environment and placed the car just under the remarkable cloud. I was a bit in hurry because the outside temperature was 47°C (117°F) :) --Tuxyso (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually looked up normal images of the car before commenting the first time and stay with my opinion. I see and understand your points, but I just do not really find the overall composition pleasing to my eyes, sorry. But it's just a matter of personal taste of course... --DXR (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems really partially stretched. The rear wheel is not round, the front is. The upper part of the sky is too dark. Polfilter? -- -donald- (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've used a polfilter. But for this kind of motive I really like it and think it is fortunate :) Nonetheless the sky was very dark blue. Stretching: You have some kind of distortion with such wide-angle shots, I guess that is not changeable anymore. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The critic is entitled to comment without being talented enough to do better!! :-). The components are far apart with a hole in the middle. The elements on the left of the tree are distracting. The car overlaps the sea in a way that seems accidental rather than posed. The white sand needs to be an out-of-focus background rather than something so detailed you see the imperfections (such as the weed near the car's tyre). The car is too small and in an undramatic side-view pose. The front of the car is not as well lit as the back. I don't know what your intention is but I guess I'd be looking to create an image that makes one think "Beautiful car in a perfect setting", but where the subject (the car) is dominant and detailed and the setting is more of an impression. -- Colin (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, first: Thanks a lot for your circumstantial comment - I really appreciate constructive comments with ideas for improvements. It's a good question what my original intention of the shot was. I am no commercial photographer thus "Beautiful car in a perfect setting" was not my very intention. The location, the Salton Sea, has been a very popular holiday location in the 19th century. Famous stars like Frank Sinatra had their fincas there. But the sea was massively polluted by farming and is now acid. The past splendour of the place is gone, the villages around the sea become more and more ghost village, see e.g. this photo and tourist do not yet go there. Thus my original intention was not perfection. At the first glance the setting implies such perfection (blue sky, nice clours sea, palms, ...) but at the second glance this perfection is undermined: dirt on the sand, the gap between car and palm tree, the massively leaning electricity pylons at the very left. I confess that the composition is improveable if one had moved the car - I just went out (46°C) and tried to compose a photo as good as possible - I was satisfied with the result. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. Well all I can do is repeat my request that folk offer a rationale for this picture like you've done now. Some pictures work simply as straightforward subject shots for WP, say, but others are more complex or have interesting shooting conditions. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stipiturus malachurus - Southwest National Park.jpg for another case where it would be interesting to know the situation and be explicit about the technical challenges. There are feelings about this photo and the landscape that are in your head and didn't translate to the bare picture nom. If it was part of a visual narrative of the area, then it might have worked better (though I'm not sure how this car fits into that story). It would be nice if someone offered such a visual narrative as a FP set, say. Would make a change from assessing sole photographs that are expected to stand alone in judgement. -- Colin (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Background information to photographs are interesting, especially in technically challenging cases. Your idea to add narratives to photos is interesting. But I see problems with the language gap. Those people who are more familiar with the English language do have advantages with such nominations. Nonetheless I completely agree that background information to FP noms are valueable and should be added if possible. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I mostly agree with Colin's perception. My first impresion here was a car and a palm, none of which are predominant but still tends to be in my eyes a (not featurable executed) commercial shot of a Nissan car. The fact that the surface of the sea is hidden by the car, and the elements on the left are also a minus to me. I would also add the the sharpness is just middle of the road (applies to both, the palm and the car). Summary: strange composition that doesn't work to me and is not overweighted by quality, sorry. Btw, I fully agree on the need of adding a description with the nomination. I have always done it and will always do because it adds value to the nomination and we all want to learn something there. Furthermore if there is no information we could miss something (intention of the photographer, cultural or historical value, etc.). Poco211:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Si vous regardez l'histograme vous verrez que l'exposition n'ait pas bonne. Les couleurs sont ternes. La composition est pauvre et ne met pas en valeur un sujet principale (l'arbre, la voiture ?). L'ensemble est plat. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuxyso: If you look at the histogram you will see that the exhibition is not good. The colors are dull. The composition is poor and does not value a main topic (the tree, the car?). The whole is flat. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC) (The response was translated by —Blurred Lines17:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 07:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I like the subject, BUT: 4.7MP out of a 24MP camera (downsampled? or 5 times digital zoom?), ISO 800 in bright daylight? Unsharp foreground, unsharp tail of the train. Burnt out (and brought back to grey) sky on the upper right. Strange looking background. --P e z i (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) What's the problem with the downsampling? It's just the decision of the photographer. The minimum requirement is given! Maybe the photographer wants to sell a version of higher resolution and gives us this one. This is his right to do so if he wants.
(2) All important parts of this train are in focus and sharp. For sure neither the tail nor the bottom part is important. So we have perfect focus here.
(3) We can't judge how the lightning situation was in fact. So the ISO 800 may be a good decision. First: for me it does not look like a very shiny day, more like a cloudy one. Second: we have here a moving object and not a fixed. So ISO 800 isn't very wrong to ensure a short exposure time. I don't see an adverse effect of noise in this picture, are you?
Btw, offering low-resolution with a CC licence while thinking you one can sell the high-resolution version is no longer wise since CC have warned they may be considered legally the same "work of copyright" and so both under CC. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 17:42:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dornas no porto de Aguiño. Ribeira. Galiza R31.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dornas no porto de Aguiño. Ribeira. Galiza R31.jpg
Support Both are nice but somehow similar. I prefer this one. I enjoy the calmness of the scene and the colors. A bit more of sky could help IMO Poco210:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The cyan lines are produced by rocks of the seabed when they are near the surface. A Cyan line (or stain) can also be produced by a brown alga that is very common in these waters and can cover large areas. There are this lines in the RAW file--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 12:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The path of the bridge is one of the lines of rocks. It was rebuilt because the rocks were emerging from the waters--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 13:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to desaturate more. At one time I upload another version, but the red color has been desaturated previously. The red color is very vivid to better see the boats at sea. If the boats were painted in the summer, as usual (the picture was taken on August 9), the color is very vivid. I'll try to desaturate more. At one time I upload another version -Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 18:07:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Male Wood Duck (Aix sponsa), Parc du Rouge-Cloître, Brussels.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Male Wood Duck (Aix sponsa), Parc du Rouge-Cloître, Brussels.jpg
Oppose Agree with Arctic Kangeroo's comment regarding sharpness and I'd add that it is over the acceptable noise thershold (including chromatic noise). For this kind of picture I just expect a crispy head Poco210:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 17:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto e o Carreiro de Aguiño coa súa ponte. Ribeira. Galiza R32.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto e o Carreiro de Aguiño coa súa ponte. Ribeira. Galiza R32.jpg/2
The cyan lines are produced by rocks of the seabed when they are near the surface. A Cyan line (or stain) can also be produced by a brown alga that is very common in these waters and can cover large areas. There are this lines in the RAW file--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 12:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The path of the bridge is one of the lines of rocks. It was rebuilt because the rocks were emerging from the waters--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 13:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2014 at 04:39:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:205kei train in JR Nikko line 02.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:205kei train in JR Nikko line 02.JPG
Support The quality is not really high and the crop can be improved (agree with Jebulon here) but the scenery is overall FP to me. I know that spot, the temples and natural park of Nikko are amazing Poco210:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I cannot bring it about the heart to vote with oppose because the scenery and the reflections are very nice. But the important train is nearly completely in shadow which looks quite unfortunate. Probably one could try to selectively brighten the train. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2014 at 10:18:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak oppose I like the colors and the quality is good but a centered composition without any extraordinary elements in it makes me decline. I just cannot see anything featurable in that bridge and the lights are also a bit distracting, sorry. Poco210:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2014 at 08:53:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sarah Bernhardt, par Nadar, 1864.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sarah Bernhardt, par Nadar, 1864.jpg
Comment IMO, the restoration should be more carefuly done. Many and many scratches, tears and spots could be removed. and you cannot say around 1864, and exactly 150 years... --Jebulon (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2014 at 06:34:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fuchsia 'Land van Beveren'.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fuchsia 'Land van Beveren'.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2014 at 06:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Émilion and Vineyards.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Émilion and Vineyards.jpg
Neutral The distortion originates in the angle of the camera (horizon not centered vertically) and isn't a fault of the lens. So no lens profile would fix it. I personally don't find it too annoying because it's not a strictly architectural shot. However, I do find the composition to be somewhat lacking in wow or a clear structure in the image. There is also some overexposure on the sunlit walls. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)20:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2014 at 09:36:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Woody Guthrie 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Woody Guthrie 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2014 at 22:47:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beach in Tropea - Calabria - Italy - July 25th 2013 - 01-cropped.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beach in Tropea - Calabria - Italy - July 25th 2013 - 01-cropped.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2014 at 22:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lagoon Nebula.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lagoon Nebula.jpg/2
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2014 at 16:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, but overprocessed to my eyes, not very sharp and contaminated with random black dots on the benches. Not FP quality to me. --DXR (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 07:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral of Albi - Nave and Organ - 7029.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral of Albi - Nave and Organ - 7029.jpg
Thanks for the information. Currently I leave my vote to Neutral, but I think you have got enough supporters :) Nonetheless a great photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 12:40:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pygocentrus nattereri Palais de la Porte Dorée.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pygocentrus nattereri Palais de la Porte Dorée.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2014 at 08:42:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Steirapollen, 2010 September.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Steirapollen, 2010 September.JPG
Neutral This is one of my ”early” entries in dslr photography. To be honest, i'm not the biggest fan of the composition in this picture anymore. There are some things I would have done other way if it was now. I still appreciate the nomination and, most of all, hope that even these pictures get useful for Wikipedia etc. Thanks! :) --Ximonic (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2014 at 06:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Charvet Place Vendôme third floor 08.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charvet Place Vendôme third floor 08.jpg
CommentJe ne comprends pas pourquoi cette photo a été présentée. Il y en a d’autres dans la série qui sont bien plus intéressantes. Une volonté de se dénigrer mon travail ? --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 12:02:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St. Laurence, Seale front.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St. Laurence, Seale front.JPG
@S. DÉNIEL, It's a courtesy to give reasons for a decline. Probably the photographer has spent a lot of effort into the photo and wants to know what's wrong with it. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2014 at 16:15:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:James "Midge" Ure of Ultravox 2012 at the E-Werk Cologne.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:James "Midge" Ure of Ultravox 2012 at the E-Werk Cologne.jpg
Comment To give some feedback: The resolution is pretty low but that's not too bad in a concert scenario, I think. I like the composition and general quality, but the photo seems to have a strong tint. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)16:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist because "No reason to delist" must be a joke - if landscape pictures are allowed to be flipped and biased any possible way, then what comes next? Maybe a flipped version of this picture as a POTY? Besides, I find this whole show with mass-nominating and then mass-delisting of own pictures kind of community time wasting, for which the account "Urmas83" imo deserves a fat block. Enough is enough, really. --A.Savin14:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Urmas, please have some pride in your photography. Anyways, it's very interesting to see how the waves look like mist when exposure is increased to a few seconds under strong wind conditions. Like Yann, I find there's absolutely no reason to delist. Urmas is gone. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 08:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, a flipped image is the same as a horizontal mirror image. May be OK e.g. for certain objects or animals, but never ever for landscapes, cityscapes, buildings,... except of course for special educational purposes which yet isn't the case here. --A.Savin14:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I hope that you will not nominated the unflipped picture later on, if you are planning to do that, it should be a replace and delist and not just a delist Poco214:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Nothing against the pictures otherwise but I do agree about the flipping. Photographs like these are likely to be used in Wikipedia and That's where the educational value of the picture is important. A flipped landscape doesn't represent the reality and so the educational value is kind of lost because it's misleading for someone who tries to study the places by the photographs for example. --Ximonic (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume from these edits ([1], [2], [3]) that Urmas83 is now in a pressure and has a difficulty to understand the points. Urmas83, please read the policies and guidelines, especially COM:SCOPE and COM:IG and discuss on the FPC:Talk if you have any doubts. Note that your contributions are irrevocable and any other user can and create an unflipped image from it as the license you granted allows "to adapt". Please stay calm to constructive criticisms that will be good for you in long time. Jee02:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any other user can unflip them but can you be sure the images really are flipped? Even if you tried to locate the places you probably would not be able to recognize the views in nature. This shows how absurd the discussion really is. The sequence of trees or stones doesn't matter. It is not a deception. There are no heritage protection object in these pictures. The flip does not change the nature, the atmosphere nor the quality of the site. I don't know about you but I'm not a google street-view photographer and I'm not environmental copyist. Since my work doesn't fit yours standard, I will not contribute anymore. It must be a relief to many of you. Wish you all the best.
I didn't say any of your images is flipped. I only made a reference of your previous FP, one user asked whether they are flipped and you answered "yes". We have a policy COM:AGF, so we are committed to believe you unless it can be proved otherwise. You can clearly see what I said later. COM:SCOPE demands realistic pictures for architectures and landscapes as they can't be flipped in real life. I am not bothered about animals or objects that can be turned. Plants can be turned easily; but that also not a big problem. All I see is some pointy attempts from your side, which are very premature IMHO. Your works are wonderful; stay calm and come back when you feel comfortable. Jee10:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With King: Seems to me that this is a "political" delist nom. Should be kept until proof is given that the image is really flipped. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No need for delist. Artistically the picture works either way though it is different. So either we believe it is flipped in which case someone should just flip it back, or we think nominator is lying. -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggest a speedy closing ("kept") and moving to log as the user already showed some discomfort. I think further discussion will do more harm to him. Jee12:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why you flipped those pictures? Here we need "realistic pictures" as per our scope, especially for landscapes, architectures and other static objects. Flipping an animal or object will not hurt that much as they can also turn themselves. ;) Jee13:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume from these edits ([4], [5], [6]) that Urmas83 is now in a pressure and has a difficulty to understand the points. Urmas83, please read the policies and guidelines, especially COM:SCOPE and COM:IG and discuss on the FPC:Talk if you have any doubts. Note that your contributions are irrevocable and any other user can and create an unflipped image from it as the license you granted allows "to adapt". Please stay calm to constructive criticisms that will be good for you in long time. Jee02:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any other user can unflip them but can you be sure the images really are flipped? Even if you tried to locate the places you probably would not be able to recognize the views in nature. This shows how absurd the discussion really is. The sequence of trees or stones doesn't matter. It is not a deception. There are no heritage protection object in these pictures. The flip does not change the nature, the atmosphere nor the quality of the site. I don't know about you but I'm not a google street-view photographer and I'm not environmental copyist. Since my work doesn't fit yours standard, I will not contribute anymore. It must be a relief to many of you. Wish you all the best.
Keep With King: Seems to me that this is a "political" delist nom. Should be kept until proof is given that the image is really flipped. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No need for delist. Artistically the picture works either way. So either we believe it is flipped in which case someone should flip it back, or we think nominator is lying. -- Colin (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggest a speedy closing ("kept") and moving to log as the user already showed some discomfort. I think further discussion will do more harm to him. Jee12:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 19:20:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pont de Bir-Hakeim and view on the 16th Arrondissement of Paris 140124 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont de Bir-Hakeim and view on the 16th Arrondissement of Paris 140124 1.jpg
Support Although this bridge is fairly well known, and imo one of Paris' nicest bridges, few images are around that manage to show its character well at night. Especially the metal construction at the bottom often gets lost in images that capture the entire bridge since it is very dark. The image presented here is not an HDR, but has been reworked in LR to an extent that I would consider appropriate to its actual appearance. The color of the sky is true to the reality of the evening, the light line above is a metro train crossing the bridge. -- DXR (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks a lot for the nice reviews! I have tried to address Poco's comment and done a bit of selective denoising --DXR (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent, except the blurry water at right, which is a bit disturbing, in comparison of the rest of the water. Is it improvable ? -Jebulon (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it is a 13 second exposure and the river is flowing, so no, I guess, sorry. I have no clue why it would be different for the different parts of the river, though, but it is consistent for all images I took there. Not an expert on fluid dynamics, unfortunately ;-) --DXR (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 19:18:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Relief CoA Pius V ceiling Santa Maria in Aracoeli, Rome, Italy.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Relief CoA Pius V ceiling Santa Maria in Aracoeli, Rome, Italy.jpg
Support Detail of the sculpted ceiling of the church Santa Maria in Aracoeli, on the Capitole Hill. Here, the relief of the coat of arms of pope Saint Pius V (1504 - 1566 -1572), of the House of Ghislieri. Rome, Italy.-- Jebulon (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest I have difficulties with such art nominations. The motive has definitely Wow potential but isn't it the wow coming from the original artist and not from the way is is photographed? For me as a person who is mainly interested in photographic aspects of Commons it is difficult to assess how much work is by Jebulon and how much work is from the original artist. If there was special effort necessary in order to photograph the motive in the way as it is done here I can warmy encourage the photographer to provide these information with together with nomnination. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you enjoy ? Then support is the last word. Do you think a FP needs to be difficult to be taken ? IMO you are basically wrong, but in this case, be sure that it is difficult. To photograph anything inside, without tripod, among tourists, is very hard. Do you think that post-processing work must be hard and must take time ? Again, you are wrong IMO. But be sure that it was hard and took a lot of my time. Anyway, you can compare with other similar works, like (no offense to the photographer) this one... I don't see any difference with a garden perspective photograph or a nice building picture or a wonderful mountain landscape (What is feature-able in Versailles ? The Le Nôtre gardens, or a very good picture of Le Nôtre gardens ? A nice old building is feature-able because of the photographer, or because of the architect ? Idem for anything). I've nominated this picture, simply because it is different, because I think the technical quality is up to the FP standards, and because I find this beau-ti-ful. And, more than any support vote or any FP star (I've got enough), I'm happy to share, from time to time, my vision of beauty with high level other photographers, better photographer than me. But at the end, once FP technical standards checked, let your heart speak. If you hear nothing, then ignore, and assess another picture. Long explanations in nominations has never made a picture better... Have you ever seen that kind of ceilings before ? This is the best relief of the CoA of pope Saint Pius V we have, and remember: this is not a wall, but a ceiling...
About pictures of works of art in general, as for me I just abstain for paintings (especially when famous), because I'm never sure of the colors (remember the last "Van Gogh", recently nominated with a very different alternative). But I think all other works of art are welcome here. When I nominate the Pietà of Michelangelo as FP candidate, be sure that I chose a masterpiece, and a ++ very good (IMO) version, very "worked", and deserving at least the nomination. That's an interesting discussion, and I'd be happy to continue it with you, dear Tuxyso. But it is not the place, and the "Babel" problem is still here...--Jebulon (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I honestly believe that the vertical lines on the right side needs perspective correction because they are not straight -Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt about your honesty, but as already answered in QIC page, the line is so in real, because it is a 1550 wooden ceiling. Try a correction by yourself, and you will see that straightness is impossible, because it is NOT a deformation due to the lens.--Jebulon (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist We can't be even sure who's the author of this photo. Who is Ruta? Who am I? In addition, this image could be flipped. Is it really a photograhp? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I verified on google, and this image is not flipped, and as for me Rutake and Urmas are at the moment two different people until proved otherwise in an official procedure --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More never-ending shit. On a side note, this looks highly suspicious like socking. It is sad that such a talented photographer (both Urmas and Rutake) is embroiled in this sort of thing. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 10:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RequestRutake, please withdraw this nomination and stay away from this topic. This is my last attempt to cool down the situation. Jee12:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 19:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 10.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 10.JPG
Info Interior view of St Peter's church in Teruel, Aragón, Spain. The church, of mudéjar style was built in the 14th century and was declared World Heritage in 1986. The decoration, performed between 1896-1902, is a neo-mudéjar style. All by me, Poco219:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded addressing (I hope) the perspective issues you talked about, along with a better crop and some selective denoising Poco221:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. I am wondering if I like the very dark shadow parts of the wooden banks, but that is a good contrast to the nice and brighter interior of the church. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—nice comp & impressive size. Regarding the bend on the right I think it's probably that the actual support arch in the church is curved & not the camera bc the tan stripe to the right of it is straight to the ruler.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk04:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2014 at 08:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Good technical quality but not entirely convincing composition. The right part of the photo (the bridge) is not very interesting, have you considered a different crop?--ArildV (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From an encyclopedic viewpoint the bridge is very important thus cropping out or massively reducing its visual importance is no good idea. From a compositional point I like the crossing of the two bridge structures at the golden-ratio position. I also tried to include some elements from the river bank at the right to give the photo some depth. Have you got a concrete suggestion for a better crop? --Tuxyso (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a suggestion. I dont think you lose any encyclopaedic value, the bridge is still there and the original image did not show the entire bridge either). IMO more focus on the buildings and a better and stronger composition. I think I'm Neutral right now, good QI but lacks something making it worthy FP.--ArildV (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The problem I see is not the right crop, that would be acceptable IMO since it is softy hidden by the tree. I can repeat in this candidate my comment from the Mülheim nomination. The quality is top but there is nothing spectacular here. The item drawing the attention is the bridge and it is not really appealing. Sorry to oppose once more, nothing personal, you know that. Poco221:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
InfoArildV and others: I made an alternative with a tighter crop at the right. Probably some people prefer this one. Let the crowd decide :) If you ask for the reason for nomination (valid for both cases): I think the light is quite good, level of detail is impressive and composition is interesting, especially the intersecting bridges in combination with the river and old buildings. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support I have been coming back to this several times in the last few days and I actually think this is a very good panorama with well-balanced composition and undoubted excellent technical quality. Really, the only issue for me is that the buildings are a bit boring. --DXR (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2014 at 12:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vasaparken 1944.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vasaparken 1944.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2014 at 18:08:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I adore the division of this photo because of the rounding of the bridge. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 24 february 2014 (UTC)
weak Support. The crop could be more radical imo - a bit too much concrete on the right side. Still, I do like the colors and the calm, almost serene atmosphere. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but no wow. The sweep of the handrail has potential but it doesn't stand out, being the same colour as the empty road, which dominates the right hand side. The flower boxes are all empty -- how much better this would be if they were full of colourful flowers. The pedestrian on the bridge looks glum, carrying her shopping bag. The road and boats all point towards a subject, which is good, but it is just a streetlamp, which isn't switched on. So the eye isn't rewarded. It is a lovely day, but the scene isn't really making me want to be there. If only we had an attractive couple walking towards the camera, with a riot of flowers in the boxes, and some attractive lighting... -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will be back, deeply the spring. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:14, 25 february 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 17:27:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Geneva Panorama from St. Pierre.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Geneva Panorama from St. Pierre.jpg
Oppose Sorry, MarsPF2, but the image is currently well below the quality level expected from featured pictures. I assume that you are new here: To get a better understanding of the expectations we have you should first nominate some images at Quality Images to get a feeling what is necessary at a somewhat less harsh threshold of requirement. Please make also sure that you read the guidelines carefully before nominating. The image you have nominated here has fairly poor detail and not corrected white borders from the panorama stiching process. Furthermore the composition is not very convincing, showing some part of the tower. --DXR (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for informations! I'm new here! I tried, and now I understand more about the procedure. Surely a less quality image respect with the other images proposed here. Thanks for consideration. Goodbye --MarsPF2 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2014 at 04:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cumulus Clouds over Yellow Prairie2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cumulus Clouds over Yellow Prairie2.jpg
Oppose For me there is definitely a wow (there just isn't a landscape in Estonia where you can't see forest somewhere), but the image resolution and quality just ain't there. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2014 at 12:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kostel svatého Bartoloměje v Pardubicích - vitráž 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kostel svatého Bartoloměje v Pardubicích - vitráž 1.jpg
Oppose Per above. And no sufficient description and categorization (I've had add the "St Peter St Paul" cat myself). We don't know who are represented, who made this work, and when. Lack of EV.--Jebulon (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2014 at 16:12:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014-02-19 15-51-35 graffitis-fort-du-salbert.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014-02-19 15-51-35 graffitis-fort-du-salbert.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2014 at 19:40:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fv55 road at Sognefjellet, 2013 June.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fv55 road at Sognefjellet, 2013 June.jpg
You apparently (pretending?) don't get it if you say that. It's not very nice for the photographer or nominator to see the oppose vote without any reason stated. I'm sure both the nominator and photographer will be more than happy to see a support vote, whether or not a reason is given. If you oppose, you feel there's room for improvement, and surely the photographer will be curious about that, and it's a courtesy to explain as well. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 13:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2014 at 18:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Michelangelo's Pietà Saint Peter's Basilica Vatican City.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Michelangelo's Pietà Saint Peter's Basilica Vatican City.jpg/2
Support Renomination after rework of this Michelangelo's Pietà, one of the marvels on the human genius IMO, and one of the great masterpieces of all times. This work has his own article in many wikipedias.I know that we already have a FP of the same subject, but it is now a bit old (2008), and a bit small. The nominated version has double size. It seems to have a sufficient quality (better than the already feaured version IMO - chromatic noise etc-). Those who know the place know also how it is difficult to take such a photograph, without tripod nor flash, and through a glass...-- Jebulon (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not really easy for me right now. I have never witnessed a delist and replace during my short time here, but wouldn't that be the right place for doing one with the FP you have mentioned? Both images show the same subject with approx. 30° difference in viewing angle while having a very comparable crop. That seems pretty similar to me. --DXR (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked myself the same question, but 1)We already have at least 3 FP of the Neuschwanstein castle taken from the same place (the bridge), 2) I'm not a fan of delisting old FP, and 3) as you noticed, my candidate is different, because not taken from the front. And there is no way to have another crop, due to the nature of the composition of the sculpture. Thoughts ? Supports ? --Jebulon (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support D&Rs make more sense on en:WP. I think it is wrong to force a contributor to make D&Rs when offering candidates to this project. BTW, a well executed image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Okay, given that two FPs of one subject appears to be accepted, I can well support as the quality is certainly good. However, may I suggest cropping a tiny bit to remove the right yellow part of the wall? Not a big deal, but I find it a bit distracting. --DXR (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support tbh I didn't actually see the sliver of yellow wall until DXR pointed it out but it is actually annoying. But not really at all a dealbreakerr—Love, Kelvinsongtalk03:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally prefer the viewing angle of the current fp, but with it´s better quality this one is still fp-worthy. --mathiasK05:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2014 at 23:50:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2014 at 11:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2014 at 09:31:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The church is nice, the boat is nice, but the crop is too tight and the tree is hiding the right side of the church. Not outstanding. --Rutake (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not mind the railings as they close off the canal bottom left. Regarding the wires, one could have taken a second photo with the camera some 4-5cm vertically shifted and then suitably merged the two photos. On balance ok as wires are reality. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2014 at 20:51:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 17.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 17.JPG
Comment I am not really convinced. The composition is imho a bit disorganized. I would suggest a tighter crop at the top (see note). IMHO the crop at the left is unfortunate because the socket of the fountain is cropped. The leafs at the top left should be copied out. A QI nightshot, but an FP? --Tuxyso (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely an improvement, but I am not fully convinced of the composition and perspective (looks somehow compressed due to perspective correction?) --Tuxyso (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2014 at 22:13:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Black Phoebe at Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black Phoebe at Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2014 at 22:28:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kostel svatého Bartoloměje v Pardubicích - vitráž.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kostel svatého Bartoloměje v Pardubicích - vitráž.jpg
Comment I think cropping some of the negative space at the top and adding a bit at the bottom would improve the compositional balance. Jonathunder (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 11:22:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Endzeit LARP.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Endzeit LARP.jpg
Support Great! Very nice and impressive work. It would be nice to provide some background information how the photo was created. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The foreground is lit with off-camera flash with a CTB gel. Custom white balance is set to the gel color to create the complementary tint to the sky and background. And the interior of the shed is lit with a mini softbox with a green cover. Should this go in the image description? --RalfHuels (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I had a bit of a struggle whether this would be seen as an image manipulation under the guidelines. As the manipulation was done with lighting and in camera and showing the reality of the background location is clearly not the main purpose of the image, I chose not to flag the image as retouched, even though the colors are not what a human would have perceived at the scene. If consensus is otherwise, I'll add the template. --RalfHuels (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. PP consists of standard Raw conversion, rotation by 1°, adjustment of exposure by half a stop downwards and a slight raising of the black level. RalfHuels (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 07:05:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Long Lonely Road.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Long Lonely Road.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 18:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A sheep with a couple of lambs in Breidsæterdalen, 2013 June.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A sheep with a couple of lambs in Breidsæterdalen, 2013 June.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 14:50:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 20:06:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait de madame de Verninac by David Louvre RF1942-16 n3.oggCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait de madame de Verninac by David Louvre RF1942-16 n3.ogg
Info created by Coyau after a painting by Jacques-Louis David - uploaded and nominated by Coyau. Animation of the Portrait of Madame de Verninac by Jacques-Louis David. -- Coyau (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 17:39:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 14.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 14.jpg
Oppose 1) Not enough wow. 2) The main object as stated in the image desccription is the pine forest, but that occupies a minority of the image, so I don't see the full picture of the "pine forest". 3) Urbanisation in the background. Makes the picture unnatural, when talking about "forests". (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 18:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination, I improved the description. The place is protected by the Conservatoire du littoral. This pine forest have the particularity to to be one of the closest of the coast in the southern France. In this picture you see also two important things : the omnipresent silhouette in the region of the Mount Saint-Clair and the vegetable carpet of Salicornia europaea which have the particularity to to grow on salty ground. --Christian Ferrer19:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the bridge runs very much and point 3 mentioned by AK (in the oppose vote) actually makes the image more valuable to me. --DXR (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just out of interest, I have examined the image in LR and with lines etc. and I do not find any convincing evidence for "strong tilts" when looking at verticals (there might be a minimal one, but a straight oppose based only on that is pretty harsh, imo). Surely the coastline is not reliable as indicator and I see a lot of pretty vertical lines. --DXR (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced on your argument that this isn't titled. Must be an illusion created by the landscape. Also, I tried a couple of different crops and could not improve on this composition. What I would have liked would have required a higher perspective. Removing the oppose. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given DXR's comment I opened the image in an editor and at full resolution it was very apparent there is no tilt with every vertical object perfectly perpendicular to the horizon. This is why I removed the oppose. I ask that Kikos consider doing the same. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bottom half is good with the clean wooden path, regular patterns, lovely still reflection, but then the eye is carried up to the top and things peter out. The centre has a few trees, a hazy hill and then further over some kind of oil refinery. The scrub land and trees which occupy so much of the image don't in themselves make a strong enough subject -- perhaps the bog has flowering plants another time of the year. Possibly a better photo could have concentrated only on the path and its reflection closer up. Or have a group or couple walking on the path. -- Colin (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2014 at 16:03:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pulpit Rock Preikestolen Norway.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pulpit Rock Preikestolen Norway.jpeg
weak Oppose Sorry, its a amazing place but I dont think the composition do justice to Preikestolen. I think we have compositions that capture the dramatic landscape better (for example 1, 2 and 3.--ArildV (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Imo both are better. The first one is a more dramatic version of this image and the second picture gives a good overview . Assuming that both of them have the same high quality in higher resolution, I believe that both have a good chances. Both gives (imo) a better understanding for the landscape and height difference.--ArildV (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2014 at 09:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Liudgerhaus und Diözesanbibliothek -- 2014 -- 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Liudgerhaus und Diözesanbibliothek -- 2014 -- 2.jpg
Oppose Could be really good but there are some flaws. The people aren't posed helpfully and the white sign is unfortunate -- all the leading lines go down to them so they need to work. The crop at the top is a bit tight and the building on the right is leaning a little on its far edge. There's a bit of CA round the old building. -- Colin (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I think you're right. I'll try to take another photo without the disturbing elements (and nominate the new one).--XRaytalk16:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014 at 20:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Pond of the Schmuckhof (Jewel Courtyard) with the main building in the background, Botanical Garden, Munich, Germany. Although the Botanical Garden in Munich as institution exists since 1809 it moved to the current location exactly 100 years ago. All by me, Poco220:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but not FP. The overcast sky and random visitors spoil it. Not sure about the crop either (the label in pond nearby is distracting). -- Colin (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Colin. While the world is not always a sunny place, drab skies rarely make for a stunning picture. That said this was a very interesting composition and it would be equally interesting to see this re-done under better lighting conditions. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great response :-) That first one is deservedly FP and I think it illustrates the point I was trying to make. I think the perspective of this image with that light would have been stunning. It would also be very cool to get the four seasons all taken from the exact same spot! Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2014 at 19:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sant Maurici lake, Aigüestortes i Estany de Sant Maurici National Park, Spain - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sant Maurici lake, Aigüestortes i Estany de Sant Maurici National Park, Spain - Diliff.jpg
Comment. Sorry, I noticed this a little too late. The distortion is unfortunately due to the extremely wide angle lens used - 14mm (full frame). The distortion is unavoidable but I accept that it does make it a little flawed for a FPC. Diliff (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 20:29:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Templo Wat Arun, Bangkok, Tailandia, 2013-08-22, DD 17.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Templo Wat Arun, Bangkok, Tailandia, 2013-08-22, DD 17.jpg
Neutral Yeah, thats the place where I took this this, just the other direction. ;-) I like the view and the given quality, even the distortion with this large FOV is managed very well. I would really like to support this one, but I don´t like the two long tail boats driving exactly "into" the prang. Diego, don`t you have a version captured just a few seconds earlier or later? That would be great! --mathiasK05:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but it's not a good work. There are signs of cloning (this is obviously not an easy task) and among the boats you have cloned out one element of the temple. Overall quality is ok, but not outstanding (bottom part of the temple is not sharp) and the light is not amiable. --Ivar (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, and good ev for the subject, but seems more composed to get everything in for an encyclopaedic image than to achieve something artistic. Quite distracting backgrounds. -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 14:14:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2014 at 16:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Castello di Amorosa.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Castello di Amorosa.jpg
Oppose The picture is really perfekt for QI and VI! But this is also the perfect example for my personal "dilemma" here on fpc! I see many, many nominations of pictures like this one here, perfect QI´s and maybe VI´s. But I ask myself, Is this really one of the best pictures commons has to offer?? I think no. It´s not really the wow-thing that I´m missing (I don´t like: no WOW!), but that little special what makes the difference between QI and FP is what I miss very often. --mathiasK17:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (weak): The light is very nice, composition convincing but the detail quality is only average (I guess due to D70 sensor). Nonetheless you made a very good photo with regard to the given equipment. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 05:38:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Nice try for something different but the pothole in the path doesn't make the image attractive enough. -- Colin (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 00:21:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Erithacus rubecula with cocked head.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Erithacus rubecula with cocked head.jpg
Support Very well done! Exif says you use a 60mm lens, how do you get so close to get this picture? Good job! --mathiasK05:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks. Yeah, tricky to get this close - even garden birds are easily spooked. I used a remote shutter, camouflage, and hours of trial and error :) --Baresi franco (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 05:27:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Koch – Mayor of the City of New York.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Koch – Mayor of the City of New York.jpg
@Jetstreamer How much more transparent can he be with the big support next to his name? Voting for one's image not is just a matter of personal taste here at FPC and no one is concerned about any conflict of interest. You would know that if you had taken the time to review a few other files under nomination or even the guidelines. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jetstreamer Supporting your own images is automatic on English Wikipedia, where this was submitted for consideration as an FP a few weeks ago. It was unsuccessful because there was no good place to put it, and EnWiki's FP process requires that FPs have prominent usage in one or more articles. Sven ManguardWha?17:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, honestly I can't say much about the artistic qualities of this portrait - I'm no expert at all on contemporary drawings. But I certainly do appreciate that prominent artists voluntarily provide their work under a free license, thus supporting this project significantly. Featuring such a fine example would further promote "our cause". --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2014 at 05:10:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Landschaftspark Duisburg Nord March 2014 3.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landschaftspark Duisburg Nord March 2014 3.JPG
Yeah ! I did not know this one and fall in the trap ! Excellent ! Thanks ! I think speaking Latin should be a mandatory here in "Commons"...--Jebulon (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2014 at 03:54:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ganymede diagram.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ganymede diagram.svg
Comment What is ice-six and how does that relate to tetragonal crystals? Why is the normal ice annotated as 1h? Is groves a scientific term? Shouldn't ganymede be Ganymede given it is a proper name? Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's literally like 15 kinds of ice in the universe, including Ice six & Ice one-h. Ice six for whatever reason has tetragonal crystals, Ice 1h is the snowflake-kind we all know and love (the h stands for hexagonal crystals). Take a look at the w:Ice article. I didn't note "hexagonal crystals" cause everyone knows normal ice is hexagonal. Idk if grooves is a scientific term but that's what the wikipedia Ganymede article uses. && I usually don't capitalize headings, it's stylistic.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk05:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting stuff. In reading that I would suggest you clean up how you present the ice information. In one you use the official ice designation first yet in the other it is bracketed. I get you are assuming people know normal ice is hexagonal but I am certain you are mistaken. I would suggest naming the layers after their shape (hexagonal and tetragonal) and bracketing the official name (Ice 1h and Ice VI) for consitency. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Why has everyone suddenly been on a capitals crusade lately… I've never capitalized a title on any of my pictures before. Headings don't have to follow the same rules that body text has to. Even the Wikimedia grants page drops the capitals. && I should also note that the Wikivoyage logo is set in all lowercase too.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk15:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelvinsong: Initially I thought something was wrong without capitals. But when I saw all your other graphics afterwards I decided to revert my decision. NO CAPS is better in this situation. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 16:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wong again. This image should be suitable for use on en:WP as it is in English. The MOS indicates capitals for celestial bodies as a proper name. This convention is not limited to Wikipedia. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why?¿ Larger text is generally supposed to take a lighter fontweight & we are rapidly moving into the iOS 7 age where bold text is so last year—Love, Kelvinsongtalk00:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing it to your other graphics of the Sun, Earth, Moon, etc, the bold text is nicer. And well, I don't really bother whether it's the iOS 7 age or not, as long as Macs don't rule the world (and Windows does). I'm changing the vote to oppose, but you can (of course) choose whether it should remain unbolded or not. Cheers. ;) (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 07:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Display type is almost always thinner and more delicate than body type, but in the intrest of avoiding conflict I bolded the Ganymede text one level to 25. && What's wrong with Apple? They're far ahead of Windows when it comes to design. (but ofc Ubuntu beats them all bc you can customize it to whatever you likee)—Love, Kelvinsongtalk18:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd be a monumental ass if I didn't support now :-) Interesting image. I was drawn to immediately and it made me want to learn more. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2014 at 07:53:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Krim 2014 de.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Krim 2014 de.svg
Oppose—extremely inefficient path quality—is this a bitmap trace? Other than that this is certainly a decent quality and useful image but not quite detailed or complex enough for FP.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk18:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 19:34:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Janine Flock - Team Austria Winter Olympics 2014 a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Janine Flock - Team Austria Winter Olympics 2014 a.jpg
Oppose Unquestionable a high quality shot but no FP for me. The light is relateively harsh, according to the centered point reflection in the eyes I guess it was a centered direct on-camera flash. There are a lot of hightlights on the skin (imho not favorable for an FP portrayal), e.g. the chin shadow is very harsh and unfortunate. A typical newspaper shot (Janine Flock in front of an disturbing ad wall) but nothing outstanding. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 17:44:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:LucerneCLWyssI.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:LucerneCLWyssI.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 09:38:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Duisburger Innenhafen Five Boats Abend 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Duisburger Innenhafen Five Boats Abend 2014.jpg
Thanks for the review and support. What do you mean by "technical quality"? Do you mean "image quality" or compositional aspects? Note that this is a single shot (no HDR) - developed from one RAW file. Unfortunately I do not own a full frame camera or a camera with higher resolution :) --Tuxyso (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not talking about size, just have the feeling that the sharpness on both sides' buildings is just a bit low, but as I said not a huge issue. --DXR (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I´m thinking the same as DXR. The composition with the nice reflection and colours looks pretty great. But the overall image quality could be better. Looks a little noisy and not 100% sharp. But as DXR said, it´s not a huge issue. ;-) --mathiasK10:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, sorry. It wasn't that sort of unsharpness that would be solved by sharpening, so I'm not changing from weak. --DXR (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that´s strange. Dit you purge your cache? Cause now I´m home and looking at both versions in LR, and for my taste this was a big improvement for the picture. The noise is way better and the sharpness looks better to. Good job! --mathiasK16:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)@:Tuxyso Aber als Hausaufgabe kannst du dir dieses Motiv, mit genau der Komp als high-res-belichtungsfusionspano ins Heft schreiben! Mein pro haste schon... ;-) [reply]
@mathias: Die Hausaufgabe nehme ich gerne an :) Weit ist der Innenhafen von meiner Home Base zum Glück nicht entfernt. Wobei ich die richtige "Hardware" (Nodal Ninja) für ein solches Pano sogar dabei hatte. Allerdings hätte der Umbau vom Kugelkopf zum Nodalpunkt-Adapter wohl solange gedauert, dass das schöne Licht dahin gewesen wäre. Ich war auch so ganz zufrieden mit dem Resultat. Klar, D800-Qualität ist es natürlich nicht... ---Tuxyso (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxyso, ich möchte nicht überkleinlich sein und ein Weak support ist ja immer noch vor allem ein Support, aber ich finde die Schärfe der rechten Häuserzeile für ein Bild vom Stativ einfach ein bisschen zu gering, vor allem am zweiten von links, und ich persönlich habe lieber ein wenig mehr Rauschen als eine doch relativ starke Weichzeichnung. Die Atmosphäre usw. ist natürlich super, und das ist auch das, was am Ende am meisten zählt. Ich hoffe, das nimmt mir hier keiner übel ;-). (Welches Objektiv war das denn, wenn man fragen darf?)--DXR (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ich meine das af-s 10-24 bei 24mm., da ist es nicht besonders stark. Kann leider nicht nachschauen, da ich einige Tage unterwegs bin.--Tuxyso (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's subtle, but you're right. Currently I cannot correct it (currently on a journey), but after the nomination the correction should be not big deal. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2014 at 18:05:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frontignan, Hérault 10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frontignan, Hérault 10.jpg
Oppose landscape that does not say anything, you do not understand the significance of this photo (and all others similar) --Pava (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2014 at 15:08:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Émilion, Aquitaine.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Émilion, Aquitaine.jpg
Comment There isn't by any chance some room on the right for a crop placing the church according to the golden ratio or rule of thirds? — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)13:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After a bit of hesitation (regarding composition) I guess that this one can become FP. At the moment I am neutral, because a lot of details on the bright fassades are not yet visible (see note). The bright areas are not burnt out but could be brought out much better if you (selectively) reduce the highlights of the photo. If you make a test and reduce overall brightness of -1 EV you see how many details are still there. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both sides are leaning out (it needs perspective correction). The composition is also tricky, it looks a bit cluttered Poco220:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The perspective distortion and the highlights (already mentioned by Poco & Tuxyso) need to be corrected. Also the overall sharpness could be better. Composition is very nice. --mathiasK05:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco and opposers. I don't understand the composition. To take a picture from a high point is not enough, I'm afraid.--Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 21:19:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Whitehall Court Mars 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Whitehall Court Mars 2014.jpg
InfoWhitehall Court in London is one contiguous building but consists of two separate constructions built in the 1880s. The right part occupied by the National Liberal Club was designed by Alfred Waterhouse, the major part (including the Royal Horseguards Hotel) was designed by Archer & Green. Well-known residents have included George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Sarah Caudwell, and Stafford Cripps. Panorama with high level of detail to capture all of the interesting features of the building.
Support Very nice quality and light! Maybe the highlights on the right side of the building can be reduced at bit more, but anyhow a good picture! --mathiasK05:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great quality, nice subject but distracting ships in the foreground. They don't really help in the composition (esp. the one with the big chimney) Poco221:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree the ships are distracting (but unavoidable I guess). The building's horizontals aren't horizontal. I wonder if any tweaks with Lightroom's horizontal perspective adjustment might fix this without upsetting the verticals -- sometimes I find you have to tweak several values iteratively to get the result. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2014 at 07:50:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Phos senticosus 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phos senticosus 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2014 at 07:06:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Texas Park Road 4 CCC Map 1.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Texas Park Road 4 CCC Map 1.png
Info An official draft for the construction of a parkway connecting Longhorn Caverns State Park to Texas State Highway 66. Drawn by the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1934, while they were working on the park. This is an unusual image because usually these documents are made by state highway departments, which copyright them, and the Texas State Library has also produced a high-quality scan.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2014 at 19:29:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Haukelitunellen ved Dyrskar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haukelitunellen ved Dyrskar.jpg
Oppose Amazing, 2,2mpx out of a D800, great!! But anyway, neither the quality nor the composition really convince me. --mathiasK21:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously think the other three experienced reviewers are just incompetent morons out to antagonize people? Your overturning an FPX and calling this a great image is absolutely infuriating, as it is so very unbelievable anyone would consider this a great picture. This image fails virtually every single criteria we seek in FP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, why are you attacking my opinion when I did not attack anyone's opinion? I only voiced my own opinion as I find it meets the FP criteria, that's all. So this only enforces everyone's fear that there is no "free speech" to oppose when everyone else supports, just that in this case, it's the opposite situation. You are free to oppose, but please do not attack others' opinions. Thank you very much. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 03:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI my policy is this. I respect your opinion(s) and I expect you to respect mine as well. But if you choose not to respect my opinion, or attack it, I may choose not to respect your opinion and/or attack yours as well. However, clarification and asking for more details of my opinion is fine. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 03:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to respect an opinion that has no foundation in reality. I have cordially discussed this penchant you have to make out of step arbitrary assessments based on personal preferences and this apparent need to assert your opinion against reasoned consensus. I am not the only one who has mentioned this either. Yet you persist despite our attempts to provide friendly counsel. The fact of the matter this image fails every criteria we set out for FPC yet you think it should be featured as one of our finest works. This opinion of yours was offered despite very obvious opposition from seasoned reviewers. That is why I cannot respect this vote of support. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Saffron. I just thought about it and I think probably it isn't really top-class, "our best work", and suitable for FP. So I shall withdraw my vote. Earlier on, I promoted it to QI, and I think that's probably more suitable for this photo, compared to FP. If you have any opposition, you can open a discussion at the QI nomination. If no discussion is opened, I think it would be promoted tomorrow at 04:58 UTC. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 06:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1823x1212px for a landscape is no go unless defended with proper reasoning. We must discourage heavy down sampling. Jee03:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 2.2 MP might be alright for images necessarily shot above Iso 12800, here it is absolutely insufficient, the clouds are pulled back in a poor way that results in a gray nothing, the haloing is far too strong, was a fair FPX, imo. --DXR (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2014 (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 many flaws (too dark, vignetting, haloes, no subject), lack of minimum quality, far under the FP standars, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2014 (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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2014 at 19:03:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Nothing distinguishes this from a tourist snapshot. The lighthouse has seen better days. Subject isn't well isolated from background. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but the light is not good and coming from the wrong direction imo, the sky is a bit hazy and the subject is not extraordinary enough to make up for that. --DXR (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 22:42:03
Info What the original reviewers apparently didn't know (because the file description[s] didn't have this information): It is a composite image. And a deceiving one at that: We see a normal, colour image of Saturn with ultraviolet aurora in false-colour overlaid on it. The colourful, nice-looking image conceals the fact that we don't know colours of aurorae on Saturn yet. (Original nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scanmap (talk • contribs) --DXR (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am by no means an expert on astronomy, but your exact complaint is disclosed in the, admittedly German, description. --DXR (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It states, loosely translated : Composite image of an shot of Saturn taken on March 22, 2004 with a false color image of UV polarlight taken January 24, overlaid. --DXR (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Edit: It actually has an English description that states that, so I honestly do not see how that would be deceiving. --DXR (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAt the time of FP candidacy the description read:
Comment First, please don't forget to sign your comments. Second, I highly doubt that many people here are motivated to delist a photo due to issues that do no longer exist. --DXR (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDon't you think it is important to know what you're looking at in order to do a valid review of an image? I think especially with this picture knowledge is important to get anything from it. So the question im asking here is: Do people still think it is a worthy featured picture when they have the facts in mind? Imagine it was "just" a painting? Or would we rather prefer something more honest - that arguably even uses the false colours for some useful purpose like the one to the right? - I'm not trying to lobby against the picture. If the standards for FP still cover this I'm fine with that.
Issues that might still exist in my opinion are: You have to be told beforehand what you are looking at in order to not be fooled. And then it's more or less just nice-looking.--Scanmap (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, yet this is the FP section of Commons (and not en.wiki and not COM:VIC) where the relationship between encyclopedia and esthetics is rather skewed towards the second. While I agree that it wasn't ideal to nominate an image that wasn't described well enough, I do not think that the image in its current form including a decent description is unworthy of FP status. I do indeed think that viewers can be expected to read a description, that's why they are there after all.
It is unfortunate that the image linked here is slightly small and unsharp, otherwise I would have suggested a nomination here. You are obviously very free to nominate an image you consider better or more suited, but I personally feel that an current FP must have larger flaws than the ones pointed out by you in order to be delisted. --DXR (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 10:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:South Bank Mars 2014 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:South Bank Mars 2014 01.jpg
Info Women playing with dogs at South Bank, London. I decided to nominate something different. I like how this woman plays with her dogs in the middle of the city, with one of the world's most famous cityscapes in the background. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much gap between woman and buildings resulting in a tall vertical crop. The arrangement of the woman and dogs really needs to be better than this for it to work. -- Colin (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2014 at 19:07:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:" 13 - ITALY - Street light in Rome near Fontana di Trevi - urban design.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:" 13 - ITALY - Street light in Rome near Fontana di Trevi - urban design.jpg
Comment @Pava: Just to centralise: Here you massively flame against the author with: "...ugly landscape, the photo does not say anything". Now I ask myself, what were your intentions to nominate this picture? (Nothing against this pic or the author, just like to know...) Regards mathiasK06:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the utility encyclopedic photo of the subject, the definition and image stability by night, in fact the picture is very good. Then here is a lamp, the subject itself is not to be emotional, can be emotional photography. --Pava (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: no fury, my "jamming" is on continual kind of pictures do not understand why are proposed. I voted photos of that author also positively in the past. I have nothing personal, but sometimes I can not understand certain things. (You do not see evil where there is not, contribute to the commons is not making personal interests and suppose this is not very fair to me) --Pava (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you very much for nominating this picture. Sorry, it's my picture, but IMO it's not a featured picture.--XRaytalk09:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2014 at 19:11:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Multicolour moccasins for sale in Positano, Italy.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Multicolour moccasins for sale in Positano, Italy.jpg
Oppose Not enough shoes! If there were dozens of shoe pairs, not just a few, it might be more interesting, perhaps even texture like, but this lacks wow. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2014 at 00:09:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cornflowers Centaurea cyanus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cornflowers Centaurea cyanus.jpg
Comment While I don't think the picture is great enough for FP, I'm puzzled about AK's oppose. The colours look within the range of natural to me and there is no sharpness problem with the image for the region that is in focus. There is quite a narrow depth of focus, but it includes all of one flower and most of another. According to the EXIF data, the image has had the contrast boosted but not saturation. -- Colin (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 12:28:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gunkanjima.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gunkanjima.jpg
Oppose Uninteressting composition (centered vertically and horizontally + non appealing subject), visible green CA, tilted (see sea level). It would also help to spend a few words about the subject, is it somehow special? Poco220:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are the FP supposed to be always appealing? I think - and I am probably biased since it is mine - that this scene represents very well this island. If you don't know what it is you should absolutely check the article, this place has a very interesting history. -- Jordy Meow (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The composition is relatively boring (imho too wide at the top). I am also not convinced of the flat perspective. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Try cropping it 3:1 with the centre of the island buildings on the rule-of-thirds vertically. That to me works much better and being closer up I can see the ruined buildings better. However, the photo has technical flaws - too much clarity boost and some significant CA on the buildings. -- Colin (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 00:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Laanemaa järv Orkjärve looduskaitsealal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laanemaa järv Orkjärve looduskaitsealal.jpg
Comment Colors and motive are impressive, but there are stiching errors (?) / HDR fusing errors of the blade of grass in the foreground, I guess easily fixable via stamping. Although it is a very nice photo, the composition is imho only average. The three compositional elements (trees / bushes) are placed somehow random on the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very nice is a commodity in short supply around here and something we celebrate @ COM:FPC. This isn't WP, but even there this would be quite illustrative of a sunset :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky/reflection are nice but the trees and bushes in the lake are dark and not interesting enough in silhouette. I think it would have worked better with a clearer uninterrupted patch of water or with a more interesting foreground to the sunset. -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2014 at 23:28:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tren na praza de Fefiñáns. Cambados- Galiza. CBD26.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tren na praza de Fefiñáns. Cambados- Galiza. CBD26.jpg
A centered composition is generally not a good thing (unless it's something like a perfectly symmetric building). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No offense to Lmbuga, nothing wrong with the photo to illustrate, but I think the subject is not featurable in that form, sorry. --DXR (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High quality technically, but the background wall is distracting and some passengers and a driver would make it much more interesting. -- Colin (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 18:55:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset over Century City as viewed from the Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles, 2013-12-14.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset over Century City as viewed from the Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles, 2013-12-14.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 16:47:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Elfbergen Gaasterland. Brug over de vijver 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elfbergen Gaasterland. Brug over de vijver 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 19:03:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Blassenstein Kreuz mit Nebel 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blassenstein Kreuz mit Nebel 01.JPG
Comment if the horizon cuts the main object, it better cut it a lot, not just a little. It is not nice that the tip of the cross runs into the horizon. This could have been avoided easily. Small thing but quite annoying.--195.69.53.24418:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree the arrangement of cross and background is unfortunate. If the fog was more extensive this might have been ok. Also would prefer better light on cross. -- Colin (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014 at 11:36:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose -- The only portion of the image that has favorable lighting is the painting on the right. Much of the main aspect of the image is rather subdued by the lesser light on the left. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2014 at 14:45:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aguiño e a praia do Castro. Ribeira. Galiza R45.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aguiño e a praia do Castro. Ribeira. Galiza R45.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2014 at 16:28:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Looks nice and natural. However, minor sharpening wouldn't hurt and some dust spots are waiting to be cleaned off (notes added). --Ivar (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I'm being picky, which I usually am with panoramas, the verticals aren't all as true as they could be. I know many of the buildings are old but even so, and especially the far bottom right one. What software did you use to stitch it? Still, it is an amazing view. -- Colin (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, agree with you the building in the bottom right corner didn't look that good, I fixed that. I also improved one of the bell towers (at the left end of the city walls). I used Photoshop CC for the stitching and rework Poco222:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2014 at 14:52:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Embarcacións. O Grove. Galiza GR9.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Embarcacións. O Grove. Galiza GR9.jpg
Oppose Sorry, but this one don`t get me. The quality is good but the composition doesn´t work for me. Don`t get me wrong, but the picture seems like a "random snapshot". I´m missing something special for fp. --mathiasK17:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surprising, "random snapshot" when one second before or two seconds after, the boats would be one behind the other. Sorry, what a lucky I have, to shoot random at the right time! --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 16:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2014 at 16:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palasio de Bellas Artes, México D.F., México, 2013-10-13, DD 40.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palacio de Bellas Artes, México D.F., México, 2013-10-13, DD 40.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2014 at 12:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Państwowe Muzeum Historyczne w Moskwie 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Państwowe Muzeum Historyczne w Moskwie 01.JPG
Oppose I'm always grateful for FP suggestions from Moscow, but we have certain quality standards and there are notable flaws: chromatic aberrations, detail loss on highlights, noise on shadows, overall lacking crispness. I'm sorry, --A.Savin13:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Halavar, The question you might want to ask yourself is whether his comments have merit. I haven't checked to see if they do, but wouldn't it be better to know and then you can complain from a stronger position? For me I love the building but not sure you captured it from its most flattering angle. The angle chosen also resulted in some complex perspective issues that are yet to be addressed. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2014 at 13:50:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vicence, Jardin du Théâtre Olympique.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vicence, Jardin du Théâtre Olympique.JPG
Comment I think if that concept had been fully realised this would have been brilliant. Given the relative positioning, her gaze is not cast towards the intruders and they are too close to her to be seperate entities. Taken one to two seconds earlier would have been perfect I suspect. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2014 at 21:03:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lámparas, Djemaa el Fna -- 2014 -- Marrakech, Marruecos.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lámparas, Djemaa el Fna -- 2014 -- Marrakech, Marruecos.jpg
Support This is ordinarily the sort of thing I'd complain about as too cluttered, but the light gives it something magical here. Something magical enough that I'm not at all distracted by that corner—in fact I barely noticed there might be something distracting there. This would make a nice desktop image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 09:19:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Landschaftspark Duisburg Nord March 2014 4.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landschaftspark Duisburg Nord March 2014 4.JPG
Info Impression of Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord at blue hour. Taking this picture was quite demanding, considering I was standing in a relatively tiny courtyard surrounded by industrial buidlings. An UWA lense was essential, plus some perspective correction. All the different sources of light made it difficult to correctly adjust the WB. What is more: The red light was kind of flickering, resulting in the impression that the "red tower" is somewhat lacking sharpness, although both objects in front of and behind it are in fact in focus. All by Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I´m not so happy with the composition and quality. The very wide field of view makes a perspective correction necessary, so far so good. But the result is a little bit too much for my taste. Now it looks like Penrose stairs to me... ;-) --mathiasK10:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The light there is very challenging (as I know from my own experience). You managed it very well - congrats. The quality of the shot is also very good. The reason for my neutral vote is that the composition is not fully convincing. There are limited photo positions but the building is directed away from the viewer and looks somehow imbalanced. As far as I can remember the atrium where you are standing is very tight and the usage of ultra WW obligatory and the perspective rather extereme. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Featured picture candidates/File:Landschaftspark Duisburg Nord March 2014 5.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landschaftspark Duisburg Nord March 2014 5.JPG
Neutral This one is better. Composition looks more pleasing to me, but due to the massive perspective correction it looks still unnatural in my eyes. Especially the green chamber is too much "corrected" for my taste... --mathiasK07:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, mathias K, for your review! Well, imo perspective correction isn't really radical in this case. My lense plane was almost parallel to the image plane. Cf. some photos without any perspective correction, here, and here. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Composition seems worse—the contour of the structure is now fanning out into the edge. It was better when it had the whole two-thirds of the picture to face out towards. Also seems slightly overcompressed & oversharpened—Love, Kelvinsongtalk00:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 15:12:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Not much more than a bunch of stuff kitsch for me, quality image otherwise (nothing personal), I'm sorry --A.Savin10:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is closer to what I was discussing earlier with many shoes. It is far better, but still not in the realm of WOW! I am concerned the colours are oversaturated as well. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 17:50:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bangkok Skyline (MK).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bangkok Skyline (MK).jpg
Info Panoramic view of Bangkoks hazy skyline. Pictures where taken from the "2nd" floor of the Wat Arun. It is a 14 (upright)picture pano taken at 100mm, hand-halt. ;-) c/u/n by me, mathiasK17:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2ndInfo I know that the foreground looks a bit random and maybe not everyone likes the resulting actual crop. But there were some roofs in the foreground so I had to crop this for the "hazy-city effect". Just for orientation, the Millenium Hilton Hotel (with the "UFO" on top) right in the middle of the picture is about 5,5 km away. --mathiasK18:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the focus fits pretty good. Even those little things like satellite dishes and antennas are visible very well, though through the haze ;-). But anyway I got your point and agree with it. I would also prefer this pano with bright sunshine, a blue sky and all those little details shown clear and "sharp". But with the given circumstances, I like the result pretty much cause this hazy view, with the nearly mising colours has something special in my eyes. --mathiasK05:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 18:44:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sète, Hérault 09.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sète, Hérault 09.jpg
Oppose Sorry, this is a very nice picture but not much more for me. I don`t think this is one of the best pictures commons has to offer. By the way, it looks way to oversharpend in some areas (the water on the right side for example). --mathiasK05:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
mathias, thanks for your rewiew and for your explanations but I want to specify that the aspect of the water is not caused by oversharpening but by a very strong North wind (look at the grass), which causes every times a lot of very small waves and an aspect very wrinkled of the water. --Christian Ferrer07:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No sorry. Picture about nothing. Description about nothing (it is the most common scene in "Sète, Hérault"?!!). Shame! --Kikos (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please try to be kind with your critics! This is not a helpful review! Shame is a totally no-go and a bad insult to the author! --mathiasK07:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm not necessarily convinced that this image deserves FP status, I see absolutely no reason why one should a) consider the depicted landscape "ugly", and b) openly insult the photographer... sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
swap my comments to insults really is not very mature, I express just what I think, and sincerely believe to be quite objective, no fury, no insult. I doubt the photographer to stop taking pictures because of my comments, I doubt that my comments offend the photographer, the most they can push to improve, to change the subject, change cities, change place or not repeating the same actions. If we instead want to comment sterile as "no wow" or only positive comments is another matter. I voted photographs of this photographer in the past, when I liked. --Pava (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks all, a famous photographer said (I forgot the name) and I think it was not the only, that a successful photo is a photo which activates a reaction, I thus concludes that my artistic talent is on a good way --Christian Ferrer21:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Pava. The scene is ugly and deeply boring. There is no composition or artistry here. Christian, the photo did not "activate a reaction", your nomination did. Hence the photo is not "successful". As someone once said "If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff." -- Colin (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, I found the composition being too tight, it is probably due to the choice of a telephoto focal lenght for a landscape. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a nice place and I believe you could take a nice photo at a different time of the day. It could definitely be more wow. -- Jordy Meow (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2014 at 08:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Nice and interesting subject, taken with good quality. The picture makes me read the article, so it done it´s job pretty good. ;-) But sadly imo not outstanding enough for FP. The thing is I can`t even tell what I´m missing cause like Arild already wrote it is "...a very nice view of both the skateway and surrounding city". Sorry! --mathiasK16:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination It was kind of ArlidV, but I don't think I would have nominated this. It has EV and may be technically OK, but little else. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2014 at 22:30:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Io diagram.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Io diagram.svg
Ughh half the people here want set noms & half of them don'tt.. Anyway there's no Callisto diagram so a set nomination doesn't really make sense—Love, Kelvinsongtalk01:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2014 at 07:00:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Newborn bat (Cynopterus brachyotis).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Newborn bat (Cynopterus brachyotis).JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014 at 16:11:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info This is a similar picture to one I nominated a month ago (in fact, of the same bird), but which didn't make FP here. I went back and reviewed the shots from the day, and I think this one has a better pose than the other nomination (I liked the slightly cocked head here - I think it makes it looks more "connected" to the viewer). I've also re-cropped to give a better, less cramped composition, imo. I can understand, however, if the front-on view is not to everyone's taste. All by Baresi franco -- Baresi franco (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Baresi. No front-ons for me. And the background is awfully unnatural. Note the italics. Pavements (one of many OK unnatural elements) are fine with me. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 06:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014 at 12:46:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kamal Bahamdan & Noblesse Des Tess - 2013 Longines Global Champions Tour.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kamal Bahamdan & Noblesse Des Tess - 2013 Longines Global Champions Tour.jpg
Support I really like this picture, the horse looks like its hovering over the fence. The oxer's, the horse's and the rider's coat colors are contrasting with the sand. A little bit of background: This picture was taken in Lausanne, during the swiss event of the 2013 Longines Global Champions Tour, which was attended by three accredited photographers, thanks to Wikimedia CH. The rider is en:Kamal Bahamdan, a Saudi Arabian, and the horse is Noblesse des Tess, a 13 years old mare. This couple has finished in 4th place at the individual jumping at the 2012 Olympics -- Pleclown (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bird's eye view is not the best angle to capture this scene. worm's eye view would be better. Otherwise an excellent motive. --195.69.53.24418:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but there is a reason why the pro's use another viewpoint (though a shame we can't). Not seeing the rider's eyes fails it for me. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your bit about pros. We were with others photographers, "as if" we were from the press. it's the meaning of "accredited". We had access to the same spots than the professionals. but, as you can see in the category, being "on the ground" poses other problems, the first being the public and everything in the background. it's, in my opinion, one of the interests of this picture, the spotless background. 90.84.146.19712:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC) ps: I'm on my phone, I can't ad links, sorry.[reply]
I misunderstood your comment about restrictions. But it is common in events for pros to have positions that the public can't use. And lenses the public can't afford. -- Colin (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lense, it's taken with a 80-200mm f2.8 Minolta mounted on a Sony Alpha 900, a 3000€ euro combination, not really everybody's equipment. Pleclown (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are focusing on aspects of my comment that aren't relevant to the oppose. The viewpoint doesn't make the jump as dynamic as it could be, and not seeing the eyes of a subject is problematic. -- Colin (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, there are flaws. But the motive seems exceptional to me. And one can see the eyes of the subject very well, as the subjects is, of course, the horse...--Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014 at 13:36:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose There is a notable lighting/brightness difference between the left and right halves of the image. It gives the impression this was two images stitched at the middle. Not convinced this particular building rises to the level of wow either given its rather mundane surroundings. I do like the lone indivual walking across the front. Nice scale reference. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The difference in the light is because of a shade just thrown by some clouds on some parts of the ground and the building. A couple of minutes later the whole building was overshadowed. Isn't that actually a plus to catch the moment of changing the lighting conditions?--MrPanyGoff22:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Saffron that the lighting changes from left to right. The horizontal along the base of the building is distorted so the stitching hasn't worked as well as it might. Rather low resolution for a stitched image. I like the plainness of the building/garden. -- Colin (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014 at 16:23:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:View on SR 98 Arizona.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:View on SR 98 Arizona.jpg
Comment if an horisontaalne line is inclined in a picture, it better be inclined a lot. Otherwise it just isn't effective. Centered composition is also not the best solution in most cases. --195.69.53.24418:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Not sure if it's tilted or if it's actually just the terrain but nice picture and while unsharp at 100%, image size more than makes up for it—Love, Kelvinsongtalk22:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bottom is extremely unsharp. Consider cropping it out (and possibly cropping out a corresponding area from the top to rebalance the horizon). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do love that sky and the subject's relation to it, but can't get past the other issues people are raising. Do you have other versions perhaps taken from a more level place or from a higher vantage point? Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced, tilted. I can see more beautiful photos coming from this exact same scene and conditions. Did you take more by any chance? -- Jordy Meow (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2014 at 07:39:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Helags Mars 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Helags Mars 2013.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2014 at 12:33:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Shun Lee Crisco edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shun Lee Crisco edit.jpg
Support Also per Diego - which is kind of funny, as we're all missing "something special" and yet do give our support. On the other side, maybe that's the special element here, the absence of anything aesthetically pleasing as key subject. This ugly monstrosity of a building is almost dehumanizingly intimidating, especially considering the friendly evening atmosphere and lighting. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014 at 22:29:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jean Henri Marlet Das berühmte Schachspiel zwischen Howard Staunton und Pierre Charles Fourrier Saint-Amant 1843.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jean Henri Marlet Das berühmte Schachspiel zwischen Howard Staunton und Pierre Charles Fourrier Saint-Amant 1843.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2014 at 19:19:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sickla Strand October 2013 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sickla Strand October 2013 03.jpg
Oppose Good reflection and colours. But it is still a brick (former) office block and those buildings on the right with scaffolding and plastic sheeting aren't attractive. Not really working for me. Sorry. -- Colin (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Colin, I don't see anything featurable here. Quality is, as usual, top but I apart from the reflexion the buildings in the picture don't say much to me, sorry Arild, Poco219:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is just a reflection. I cannot determine which is the subject. If it is trying to show the building, then the trees and the reflection get in its way. If it is trying to show the water and the trees then the building is awfully disturbing. IMHO. Barcex (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for nomination. I like this photo. Some environments are complex. This lake is located very close to the city center (In the background is en:Folksamhuset). The south shore (where I was standing when I took the picture) is a nature reserve. The northern section covers different eras, the trees on the north side is planted and belonged to a former estate. Around the year 1900 industry expanded in the area and Atlas Copco built a huge industrial area. The company dominated the area during most of the 1900s and also built the brick house. In the late 1900s, the industry move further out from the city and the new houses were built. I think (besides the wonderful autumn and the reflections in the water) that the environment is interesting with contrasts between nature and the growing and changing city. I added a geocode to show the location better. Thanks for comment and votes.--ArildV (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 00:13:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tokyo Midtown Akasaka.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tokyo Midtown Akasaka.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2014 at 22:59:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Widok na Perast od strony morza 05.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Widok na Perast od strony morza 05.JPG
Comment Stunning location and nice composition with some interesting leading lines. However, I think the point of critical focus is on the boat not the landscape, which causes the village and mountains to be rather soft. The village shows sign of some blown highlights. I am also seeing an unusual texture pattern in the sky, which is most notable when the image scales in the browser. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like the image, Halavar, do you think you could address the issues mentioned? I'm certain that the original file should be free of the line issue mentioned, do you have a raw file? --DXR (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2014 at 16:34:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:T Roosevelt.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:T Roosevelt.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2014 at 15:40:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --DXR (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2014 at 20:00:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La Grotta di Byron.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Grotta di Byron.jpg
Oppose Typical HDR problems: Clear sky haloes around mountains, a bit oversaturated. Also small and not very strong in details. --DXR (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice view indeed, but the HDR problems, mentioned by DXR, are too visible for me. btw, whats the pink spot on the upper right side? --mathiasK10:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This sure is a great photograph! The issue I have is that its appearance isn't very natural, and therefore its encyclopedic value seems rather limited to me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks unnatural especially the sky (HDR). Looks slightly tilted. Original photo with appropriate post-processing could be FP. Jordy Meow (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2014 at 19:26:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach-Hauingen - Haus Steinenstraße6a 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach-Hauingen - Haus Steinenstraße6a 2.jpg
Oppose Don't see anything remarkable either photographically or in the subject. (are those roof tiles plastic?) -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you have spend a few seconds more you could see that this is a regular residential building, but exceeding small. But I never had seen any solid review on my picture by you. Such is life. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice it was small, but not "exceedingly small". Perhaps, if the subject is remarkable but the photo fails to express that clearly, then that is all the more reason to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the photo fails to express that clearly because? I see a house and a lamp in the background to give a idea of the dimensions. If this point should really be your reason to oppose (but I question this) than it is easy to disprove.--Wladyslaw (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The house in the background is four stories tall, so of course it is larger. And a street lamp at similar height to a second floor window is not unusual. -- Colin (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me just one example of a house with just 1 story, an area like an garage and straightly above a attic floor with double pitch roof. I never had seen that before. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a one-bedroom bungalow? Have you seen the size of starter-homes in the UK? And this is wider and deeper than any single garage in the UK. Small houses are not unusual, but typically they are old and quaint, rather than modern and plastic. -- Colin (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You aren't able to show me such a house. (2) This house is not in UK but in Germany and such houses are very unusual for middle Europe. This one is a cultural heritage monument for your information. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2014 at 22:36:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:1930s Japan Travel Poster - 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:1930s Japan Travel Poster - 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 18:22:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mukdenia Rossii 03.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mukdenia Rossii 03.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2014 at 19:18:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2014 at 08:37:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Heißluftballon am Sihlsee2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heißluftballon am Sihlsee2.jpg
It goes to the heart of why this not FP. It is a perfectly ordinary photo of a perfectly ordinary balloon, with no apparent attempt at artistic composition or spectacular technical achievement. In contrast, King of Hearts, I don't think "I think it is quite good" is a satisfactory reason to support an image that is supposed to be among our finest works -- have you looked at the category for balloons? -- Colin (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question It is almost perfect technically. I would definitely support if the resolution is higher and the sharpness increased. Any chance? --Jordy Meow (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Higher Resolution? My camera has 16 MP and this image was not downsized, so no chance to get a higher resolution. But I wonder anyways what is the effort increasing the resolution? You want to make a ultra poster out of it? This picture was not sharpend in addition, IMO it's sharp enough. But I could for sure sharpen the image a bit. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would increasing the resolution/sharpness make this more interesting? Remember this is supposed to be the "finest" on Commons, so a look at the category is a good idea. This is complicated by the fact that someone has over-categorised as is a frequent problem on Commons. But still, we have thousands of balloon photographs and many are equal to this in technical quality and lots are superior in terms of subject (not least, as Saffron points out, the other balloon picture by Wladyslaw). -- Colin (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2014 at 06:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2014 at 13:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St Bride's Church, London - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Bride's Church, London - Diliff.jpg
Support very good. Arild, look again! It looks weird at first sight, but there is nothing wrong, just the shadow of the window framing in a thicker bar of it. --Kadellar (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2014 at 12:41:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Very nice subject, but rather low quality. The sharpness around the eyes is pretty soft and very strong CA´s all over the bling-bling. --mathiasK13:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 09:08:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak support Good timing, quality and reflexion, the composition is also ok but not spectacular to me. I like the quietness. Poco215:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2014 at 06:31:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lido de Thau, Sète, Hérault 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lido de Thau, Sète, Hérault 01.jpg
Oppose I'm not convinced by the usage of a telephoto here, the resulting compression of perspective gives a feeling of being trapped in a box, which is not of my taste for landscape photography. Sorry --PierreSelim (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Difficult, quality and lighting are good, composition ok but there is something missing here that makes it remarkable. I also agree with Pierrre's comment Poco215:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2014 at 22:48:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Scorpions - 07.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scorpions - 07.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2014 at 00:31:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Independence of Brazil 1888.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Independence of Brazil 1888.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 19:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Prismas Basálticos, Huasca de Ocampo, Hidalgo, México, 2013-10-10, DD 42.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prismas Basálticos, Huasca de Ocampo, Hidalgo, México, 2013-10-10, DD 42.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2014 at 17:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Callisto diagram.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Callisto diagram.svg
Finally someone actually noticed!!¡¡ 😊 It's because all my earth science diagrams are actually meant to be miniatures hence the short focal lengths, wide apertures, & iOS7-style scattering effects. Idk if I got the falloffs right though—I'm not sure how circles blur with bokeh so I just used a gaussian filter. I've never had to do point bokeh so it's not that obviouss—Love, Kelvinsongtalk23:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually noticed it all the while, including in the other diagrams. And I like it, as it lets us know which planet the moon belongs to, and gives the effect of viewing the moon from space. Btw Kelvinsong, is it possible for you to create similar diagrams for the planets and dwarf planet (Pluto)? (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 02:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if what you have left in this series was offered as a set instead of going through each nomination individually. However, I would suggest to ensure a smooth nomination process that a standard be applied to them all. Also agree with Kruusamägi regarding the placement. No need to obscure that nice bokeh work :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh stahp it's literally just a 8.0 gaussian blur on jupiterr!. Moved the title (though personally I think it's better to have the title superimposed on it to make it clear that Jupiter is in the background). && I wish I had the patience to do all of them & nominate them as a set but the promotion of each one motivates me to do the next one ;). Also I didn't really want to invest so much effort if there was a chance they wouldn't be very well recieved bc a lot of large projects I drew before wound up getting ignored in FPC so I don't do those anymore.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk20:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question How could we be sure that this design shows the truth ? Is Callisto's interior really like that ? In other words: are these diagrams "scientific" ? Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon Good question & not really one I can answer. Usually I just draw what the sources specify & if the scientists are wrong you can't really blame me. I use 3D projection software & draw these things with neurotic precision because I'm like OCD with this so you certainetely don't have anything to worry about on my end. Really I don't think it's even possible to be wrong with subjects like this cause from what I read not even the lab coats know what's inside the Jupiter moons. It mostly consists of all the scientists making their own guesses about the moon structure and each guess is different. Sometimes the scientists even contradict themselves (along the lines of "wtf eight pages ago you said Callisto had Ice III inside it & now it turned into Ice V??"). If I tried to average the numbers or cover every possibility there would probably not actually be any Callisto diagram to vote on here. Really the only way to do this is to just pick one source that's fairly recent & comprehensive enough & go with it. Ig if a PhD publication can't be trusted then I don't even know what can then.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk20:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Kelvinsong for complete answer. I'm fully ignorant about astronomy. I don't want to "blame" anybody, and especially not scientists ! It was just a series of questions, and I think they are not illegitime in this case. Your kind answer is sufficient for me. "Love" too, --Jebulon (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 08:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Waldkauz-Strix aluco.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Waldkauz-Strix aluco.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2014 at 09:05:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St. Michael (1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St. Michael (1).jpg
Info The ruins of shot church of St. Archangel Michael (Ukrainian) in former village Vyshenka Velyka, now this is a territory of Yavoriv Proving Ground in Yavoriv Raion, Lviv Oblast, Ukraine. The church was built in 1927 and destroyed in 1940 by the Soviet occupation regime. --TheLotCarmen (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2014 (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: Insufficient size, far below the required 2MP, please refer to the guidelines. --DXR (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2014 (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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 16:52:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Peter-Gabriel-2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peter-Gabriel-2011.jpg
Oppose --- One of my favourite artists, but this is not an exceptional potrait of him. The background is distracting and the lighting a bit harsh. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an alternative version of one candidate. I put this other nomination based on this: Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. --Araujojoan96 (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{o}} Composition: Inexplicable, ineffective and inadequate black space to the left. Why the space is not to the right (random picture?)--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 15:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think I can think of the phrase "I didn´t took the photo". Please, take responsibility for what you propose--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 16:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't understand my English, I can explain me in spanish: En cuanto la composición, la foto está descompensada. El sujeto mira hacia la derecha y el espacio libre está hacia la izquierda. Es una pena, pero, para mí, no es una buena foto--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 16:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lo repito, respeté el tamaño original de la foto. Yo me responsabilizo por mis nominaciones, pero es absurdo que crea que tengo que complacerlos a todos para que me den su voto. --Araujojoan96 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue Bugallo raised is he didn't like the space on the left he thinks it should be on the right. He is entitled to that opinion. I just don't agree with it. If the black space was on the right it would be like Mr Gabrial is singing to the void. Here he gives the impression of singing out to those beyond. It's just a matter of taste and people vote their taste here. BTW, this latest edit isn't likely to help your cause. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
¡Qué difícil es permitir que alguien piense diferente!: La composición es mala: Bad composition. It's my opinion. Tengo que negar mi opinión por algún especial motivo?--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 18:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
¿No es suficiente que ante tantos votos a favor me muestre diferente como para que vosotros me podáis ignorar?. ¿Por qué se odia al que no piensa lo mismo?. Algúndía pensaré igual. ¿Debería entonces rechazar la compañía? Conclusión: Somos poca cosa y menos si no somos como son los que son más. ...Y todo esto por una ...de foto que no me importa un carallo. Todo por simplemente no ser igual--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Empezáramos por ahí. Yo no me he fijado en la foto desde entonces. Está mucho mejor. No me puedo oponer ni queriendo. Debería no querer por como he sido tratado. Ni si quiera se ha indicado que se me ha hecho algo de caso. Se me ha llevado adelante como a un... Pero la verdad es la verdad: Me gusta ahora la foto mucho, no solamente lo suficiente, Support, aunque no precisamente te considerte un buen amigo, dado el trato recibido por no ser igual--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lo hice apenas lo pediste, Miguel. Sólo que me decepcionaba que dos personas se hubieran opuesto por gustos personales. Eso no quiere decir que te hubiera despreciado o ignorado. Nunca quise eso; lo que pasa es que no sabía muy bien como arreglarlo hasta que la solución apareció sola ante mí. Te pido disculpas si te ofendí, te agradezco el buen gesto, y si quisiera ser tu amigo en un futuro. --Araujojoan96 (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 06:06:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 00:47:28 (UTC)
This new infrared view of the star formation region Messier 8, often called the Lagoon Nebula, was captured by the VISTA telescope at ESO’s Paranal Observatory in Chile. User:Stas1995
The VLT Survey Telescope (VST) at ESO's Paranal Observatory in Chile has captured this richly detailed new image of the Lagoon Nebula. User:Jmencisom
Gas and dust condense, beginning the process of creating new stars in this image of Messier 8, also known as the Lagoon Nebula. User:EricHS211 (centered by User:Lmbuga)
Oppose No wow for me. I'm not sensitive to this kind of images, they do not look different (to me ) of the tons of images like these we have here on "Commons". I know this is not politicaly correct, but it is my opinion, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 07:52:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Greater Flamingos, Lido de Thau, Sète 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Greater Flamingos, Lido de Thau, Sète 03.jpg
Neutral Thank you Arctic Kangaroo for this nomination, I am rather satisfied with this photo and with what I show there, the purpose being to show an overview of birds in their habitat, the whole in a not too unpleasant composition. The purpose of this specific photo was not here the research of the wow but rather to show most possible landscape around the birds. It was for me impossible to pass there without taking this photo. When I shall find the time to edit them, other photos of this place will be uploaded, maybe certain will be more artistic to pass the bar of FP. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 13:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Maria Tudor1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maria Tudor1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2014 at 17:01:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Carduelis carduelis close up.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carduelis carduelis close up.jpg
Almost, but not quite! The feeder is on another branch about 2m to the right, and this is a branch that they land on to eye it up. I've weighted this branch at one end to pull it down and give me an unobstructed view along it (and, I think, a nice background). I've sort-of given up on my 100-300mm f5.6 lens for birds at the moment, and instead I'm trying to get close with a 60mm f2.8, which involves a lot of subterfuge ;) I've used a remote shutter and tripod here, and a home-made hide from which I can see my pre-set AF square on the LCD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baresi franco (talk • contribs) 20:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Wonderful tactics to override the limitations of your equipment. And IMHO, you beat our great birders in some of your works. Keep it. Jee03:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many thanks for the nomination, Arctic Kangaroo :) I like the tighter crop you've done, although maybe a little more space above his head (since he's looking slightly up), might not go amiss? I wasn't exactly sure how to crop myself, as you can see in the history --Baresi franco (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 19:19:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry Diego, I dont`t see anything that makes this picture featured. Nice shot, but not much more for me here. --mathiasK13:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 18:16:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of Vologda Kremlin.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of Vologda Kremlin.jpg
Oppose Per Saffron, I wonder if the ND filter is digital, because the image itself is pretty promising and certainly useful, but the quality at the moment is not FP-like --DXR (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2014 at 23:24:53
Info This picture would never have had a chance of becoming featured today in 2014. The blur is generally too high, and the narrow focus depth doesn't suit the scene at all. (Original nomination)
Delist good idea for an image but bad technical accomplishment, I am very reluctant in delisting FP but here I think it's justified --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2014 at 04:24:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Orhan Pamuk in Rustaveli Theatre, Tbilisi, Georgia, 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orhan Pamuk in Rustaveli Theatre, Tbilisi, Georgia, 2014.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2014 at 15:06:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pluvialis fulva 2 - Laem Pak Bia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pluvialis fulva 2 - Laem Pak Bia.jpg
Honestly, I don't know what to tell you. I wasn't there when JJ took the picture, so you might want to ask him to comment on this, if he is still active here or Wikipedia. —Blurred Lines16:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2014 at 13:50:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:King's College London Chapel, London, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:King's College London Chapel, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Fairly unavoidable in small spaces. If you want a fairly complete view of an interior, you have to accept a certain amount of distortion. Diliff (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree with Kikos, the lamps are very distorted, I tried to fix it (wrap distortion) and got better results but not as I hoped. Also a compression of the y axle, keeping the x as it is helped. Still overall an FP to me. Poco215:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2014 at 14:58:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Friedrich-von-Thiersch-Saal Bühne.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Friedrich-von-Thiersch-Saal Bühne.jpg
Oppose Really nice picture! But for me there are some issues to make me oppose. The overall quality could be higher imo. For a shot like this i expect a little higher resulution, better light and, I know thats nitpicking, the other fotographer is really disturbing in my eyes and I think this would be avoidable . Sorry... --mathiasK13:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Leviathan1983: Ok about the other photographer (I was thinking about retouching myself, but others convinced me, to leave him there) and the optical aberration(it's „just“ a 500€-Lens), but I don't understand why you suggest a „better light“? This interiour shot was done with the available artificial light and reflects the exact situation on location. I neither see the possibility nor the necessity for a different lighting?!
One comment on the resolution complaints: Our guidelines define a minimum of 2Mpx. This photo has more than double of that: 5.5Mpx. Who ever consideres this not to be sufficient, should attempt to change the guidelines, instead of giving contras to single photos. --Martin Kraft (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are used to Diliff's fantastic stitched photographs but this appears to be a single frame from a 10MP camera and is approx 75% width, which is not a large reduction. If the subject were less spectacular, or the framing less precise, the lower resolution would count against it for me. Martin, the 2MP limit is the absolute floor of acceptability (to be breached only if really justified). There is nothing stopping reviewers citing insufficient resolution/sharpness in their opinion for their oppose as we are judging what is the "finest on Commons", rather that what is acceptable. This happens not infrequently for scanned paintings or for panoramas. The "finest" will naturally creep upwards technically. Btw, can people avoid "small" for review comments. I know the intention is to make the text parenthetical but it has accessibility issues. -- Colin (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well captured ornate interior. I would support an alternative with the photographer skillfully cloned out -- just use the retouched template -- I see no issues with doing that here. -- Colin (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2014 at 15:05:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Katzenjammer - Greenville-Festival-2013-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Katzenjammer - Greenville-Festival-2013-2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2014 at 21:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Cloisters of Gloucester Cathedral.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Cloisters of Gloucester Cathedral.jpg
{{o}} Sorry, the clipped highlights are only a bit acceptable IMO. Too tight at left: bad composition IMO--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 15:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made that apparent in your oppose. I guess you were just trying to throw it in my face that is isn't so hard to argue. You win. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. The users win, Commons win, I'm no-one or I'm nobody, please you do not consider that I am important. Confused if you think that. I only say a opinion (I only say a opinion IMO)--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 20:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I await your response, meanwhile I delete my vote because I feel bad. I feel bad with your treatment. Maybe I should stop once and for all to collaborate on Commons--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 20:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Yes, too tight on the left, I would really like to see a bit more and the overexposures in the stained windows took away important details. Poco218:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2014 at 02:01:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:CityCat and City Ferry flotilla returns to the river 14 February (5728364964).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:CityCat and City Ferry flotilla returns to the river 14 February (5728364964).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 10:02:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alhambra Löwenhof mit Löwenbrunnen 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alhambra Löwenhof mit Löwenbrunnen 2014.jpg
InfoCourt of the Lions of Alhambra. The light is quite challenging (extreme bright, dark differences), shooting conditions poor (no tripods allowed, a lot of people, very limited time). I made a hand-held exposure fusion. all by me. I look forward to your reviews. -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DoneMartin and Diliff, I've hopefully adressed your issue and made a completely new development. IMHO it looks now more naturally. It would be nice to take another look and give some feedback. Thanks. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for re-reviewing. The current photo is the most natural looking one I could achieve - I made several attempts... --Tuxyso (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not easy to make this sort of scene look natural. It's tempting to do all the processing in a tone mapping/exposure fusion software, but I often find that it's better to output a very 'flat' tone mapped/fused image, and then do the rest of the post-processing in Lightroom/Photoshop. It's more time consuming and difficult that way, but you end up with better control of how it looks. I'm not sure how you're processing it, but it's worth keeping in mind. :-) Diliff (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions. I usually use Photomatix 4 only for exposure fusion. The tonemapping and selective shadow brightening, local white balances,... is done in LR. The function "Merge to 32 Bit HDR" has the disadvantage that ghosts cannot me marked as those. Thus I usually use Photomatix with manual ghost marking and exposure fusion in combination with LR. The detail enhancer method ofter leads to unnatural results - I use it very seldom. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some issues: the right side is closer to the camera than the left one (horizontal perspective correction needed?), to me it still looks unnatural (but wouldn't make me oppose with this improved version), the closer group of columns on the right is leaning out and there are some noticeable halos, especially 2 people in the middle of the right side. The place is, of course, magic... Poco215:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As said in QIC, Granada is one of my favorite places in the world. But all the issues mentioned by Poco are enough for me to oppose. I think an attempt to clone out the tourists could be interesting. Once again, I'll be there next summer vacations, and I'll try to do something. And yes, the place is magic !--Jebulon (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't oppose this, but I can't support it. I actually went off and did something else for 20 minutes or so and came back for this one ... and it just seems ... unreal, or maybe hyper-real. I can't imagine how difficult it is to get the lighting right, since I've never visited this site, but it looks like a painting that was itself created in a badly lit studio. Details in shadow are (seemingly) impossibly highlighted; every nearby tourist is partially obscured. It feels like a composite; it feels like a manipulation—and, with apologies, I can't seem to get past that. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage06:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 11:20:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Atari-2600-Wood-4Sw-Set.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Atari-2600-Wood-4Sw-Set.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 08:09:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chinese Palace in Oranienbaum.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chinese Palace in Oranienbaum.jpg
Info Chinese palace (South facade) and Chinese pond in Oranienbaum park of Saint Petersburg
Oppose I agree it could be more sensitively processed (but perhaps capture was problematic) but overall this is just a QI photo not exceptional enough for FP. -- Colin (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 10:11:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nationalmuseum Mars 2014 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nationalmuseum Mars 2014 01.jpg
InfoNationalmuseum built 1844-1866 in Stockholm. Architect Friedrich August Stüler. In the foreground two classic archipelago steamer (still in regular service in the summer) from the early 1900s. Both ships belong to Waxholmsbolaget, which for over a century have used quay for its archipelago traffic. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Quality and timing are good, but not outstanding (as in other of your shots) and the subject and composition are good but not featurable IMHO Poco215:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Some of the criticism is correct, some not (the trail-away walkway lights to the left are perfect). This is soooooo close. I understand waiting for minutes if not hours for the lighting to get juuuuuust right, which is what makes it so ironic that this would have been nailed about 20 seconds later; the boat's stern partially obscuring the entryway killed it for me. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage06:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 06:50:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2014 at 09:05:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Close-up of Cynopterus brachyotis (Lesser short-nosed fruit bat).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Close-up of Cynopterus brachyotis (Lesser short-nosed fruit bat).JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2014 at 15:22:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Holy Trinity Sloane Street Church Nave 2 - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Holy Trinity Sloane Street Church Nave 2 - Diliff.jpg
@Blurred Lines: Don't use revert to close a nomination when the time is over. You made a mistake that I corrected and talked to you gently. But your behavior is rather rude. First learns what are the purposes of the revert tool. Second, let the bot to close the nominations first. Give enough time to confirmation so that bot will permanently close it in its next run after 8 more hours. Jee15:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, to let you know Mr. Jee, I do not have rollback permission, so to tell me to learn about reverting is a pity thing to say to a experienced user. Second, I have told you several times that it has been 5 days, and since then there has no been opposes, and that's why I have speedy promoted it. I don't know what your problem is with speedy promotions, but please do not bark at me like a dog because I couldn't concentrate on the time, minding the date instead, as of which in the rules it does not state any of what you are trying to say to me. —Blurred Lines16:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 21:39:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info The Willow Tit (Poecile montanus), a species that has suffered a dramatic population decline in the UK (and over most of Western Europe) over the past thirty years. Created, uploaded and nominated by Baresi franco (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Appreciate the constructive comments, and I can understand the desire for more colour/warmth. However, I don't really want to increase the saturation in this case, as the Willow Tit has quite muted plumage, which reflects its habitat (damp scrub/woodland at cool latitudes - it nests in old, rotten tree stumps ), and I think this is captured here. The background is all foliage, just lighter on the right. --Baresi franco (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 23:44:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pano Grand-Hotel Nationalmuseum Stockholm DSC 0003w.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pano Grand-Hotel Nationalmuseum Stockholm DSC 0003w.jpg
Oppose Need to crop out the near bank/pavement. That would improve composition. But resolution and lighting are still unspectacular. -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*{{Support}}--Miguel [[User talk:Lmbuga|<u>Bugallo</u>]] (Lmbuga) 21:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Second vote, sorry--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 21:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 10:53:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Île de la Cité shortly before sunrise, West View 140320 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Île de la Cité shortly before sunrise, West View 140320 1.jpg
Support Yes, this is obviously the sort of view pretty much everybody has seen before, but I think the morning blue hour (?) - the image was taken at 06:30 CET - makes the location, which is nice anytime, outstanding. The image is a HDR, but I have been careful to use it as a pure dynamic range expansion tool and think that it does not introduce any fake effects here. -- DXR (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very stunning result. I would prefer less processing (would make the noise less dominant and give some areas more contrast) but the result fulfills what I expect of a FP. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)14:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Nonetheless I think FPC votes have a massive bias torwards photos with water reflections (as I know from own noms) :) Could you shortly say which HDR technique was used? Software? Fusion vs. tone-mapping? BTW: There is no excuse required if you use HDR techniques - in contrary. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxyso, I exported the five images from RAW in LR, did a fairly conservative tonemapping in an ancient version of Photomatix, exported it as a (gigantic) 16-bit Tiff and did some final touches in LR, again. --DXR (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Think again, my friends. Yes, sunrise is nice, light coming from back could be nice when is compensated by HDR. But this city landscape? I don't think it's the best idea. The only justification could be that in this hour there is no traffic, no people. Don't let the nice sunrise sky and water reflection fool you. Composition is poor. Something on the left side but rather empty, the center part is very busy. Poor details, main object in shadow, dull colours. Most of you and also the author have given these reasons when opposing good images. Now you don't see these flaws. Just think again. Of course you could blame the reflection in biased voting. --194.132.180.24221:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing. — Macbeth
Support but still improvable IMHO adding a bit more of the bridges in both sides, the crop is not the best I think Poco218:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, you are correct, but regrettably I cannot add more space on the left. In my defense, it was very early when I took the photo, and there was a slightly irritating and most likely intoxicated person not far away from me that persistently tried to converse with me in ways that well exceeded my knowledge of French. That was obviously not helpful for my concentration ;-). --DXR (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. The reds on the left more than make up for any lack of activity. (Oh, and DXR, just how "intoxinated" were you when you typed that? XD) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage04:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not fan of the colours and contrast especially the dark dones. One one hand part of the images gives pretty soft colours, due to the light at dawn, on the other hand their are pretty very strong dark tones with a mix of green and black wich is not in my taste. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2014 at 14:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Barnard 33.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Barnard 33.jpg
Probably not, only (false-)colorful nebulae get some luck around here. Anyway, you should point reasons for not featuring this picture or if you think you have already done that, be more explicit. --G Furtado (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm here, there are (almost) always two or three current nominations of "space pictures", and as a fully ignorant, I don't see difference between them. My question was another way to say "no wow" for me, sorry".--Jebulon (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with editorial: something's always bothered me about images similar to this one, as if their creators vacillated. You know, "wait, this is too red, maybe I should add something different ... hey, how about a blue nebula down here?" xDDD —ATinySliver/ATalkPage07:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 17:06:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 18:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Meydenbauerkamera.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Meydenbauerkamera.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2014 at 05:47:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Balaruc-les-Bains, Hérault 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balaruc-les-Bains, Hérault 01.jpg
Strong support Almost no flaws, if any. Beautiful landscape that makes me go "WOW!!!!!" as well. Nothing available for critique in the picture. --(✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 06:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kikos. I don't understand AK's comment at all. The camera has captured a sharp image on its sensor. Other than that, I can't see anything remarkable about this photograph that justifies even QI never mind FP. One has to do more than point the camera at a bit of landscape. -- Colin (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Arctic Kangaroo: , I agree wow is subjective, but I wasn't commenting on your "wow" remark, because at the time you hadn't said anything about wow. Saying this has no flaws and cannot be criticised in any way is, well, ridiculously bold and not true of any picture created by someone on Commons let alone an award winning photo in a national gallery. AK, voting like that just makes people suspect you are playing games. This isn't fair on Christian, who I'm sure would prefer a justifiable level of appreciation from supporters rather than the fawning on show above. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: OK, I will take note in future. I was just adding the "wow" factor about the imho "beautiful landscape" that I did not mention earlier, following your criticism. Thanks for the feedback. ;) (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 05:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think we all understand that wow is subjective but it also has norms. Look at the FP landscape category for images that are within a wide range that could be considered a norm. This falls well outside that norm. It's a fine picture, but very few people are going to go wow! Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. It's a fine image, but nothing about it says anything to me more than standing-on-an-overlook-point-and-shoot. Its most interesting feature to me is the background; nothing closer to foreground captures my attention. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage03:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2014 at 19:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Twintowers of Deutsche Bank Headquarter in Frankfurt a.M..jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Twintowers of Deutsche Bank Headquarter in Frankfurt a.M..jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2014 at 09:22:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio demoleus (Lime Butterfly) on leaf.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio demoleus (Lime Butterfly) on leaf.JPG
Nothing incivil intended, just an honest opinion. :)
But, come to think of it, you're right. To me, this is hyper-everything—hyper-sharp, hyper-lit, hyper-colored; the photographic equivalent of an overproduced song. Again, it's all a matter of opinion—and it's all too possible that it merely augmented an already-existing headache. xD —ATinySliver/ATalkPage22:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2014 at 19:21:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info View of the small village of Moros, province of Zaragoza, Aragón, Spain. The whole village of Moros lies on a hill, with the most relevant buildings in the top (church and former town hall), the residences in the middle and the sheep pens at the bottom. The current population of Moros is 441 people (35% of the population one century ago, that's why many houses are abandoned). The picture is the result of the blend of 3 pictures. It was necessary because the sun (shone on the left) made the clouds very bright, causing an overexposed sky within one frame. All by me, Poco219:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the overall composition very much, however it appears that there are some patches of softness on some of the buildings. Nothing major, perhaps related to the HDR. --DXR (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a matter of location in the image, but e.g. some of the buildings near the church are a bit soft (like the ruin below) [but well possible that I'm maybe a bit too strict here]. I would just sharpen it a notch overall to give it more crispness, but just my opinion, not a big deal at all at this res. --DXR (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I increased the sharpness overall and selective in some areas, looks fine to me, thanks, 11:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
weak Oppose Sorry but Imo despite sharpening, the left part are is still not quite sharp and has a low level of detail. Composition and lighting is good, but not outstanding (nothing that sets it apart from a good QI). No wow either.--ArildV (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ArildV, can you please add a note where you miss detail? I cannot see the loss of quality that make you oppose. The weather and lighting were IMHO optimal. The sun was shining to the facades of the interesting side of the village and the shadows, far from disturbing, add perspective and texture to the image. The clouds, that could be shown properly with help of HDR, are a plus to me, as well. Regarding wow, of course, that's a matter of taste. Maybe you think that this kind of scenes are usual in Spain. I am Spaniard and have travelled a lot and I hadn't seen a case of a whole village being fully built up on such a steep hill. Before tooking the picture I walked around the houses and it was pretty crazy. When I took this picture there was big wow for me and I thought that would be even more for others not familiar with old spanish villages. Poco214:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Poco_a_poco; after discussing the picture earlier today, I took another look. I'm still not convinced, to me it is almost like you've applied a lot of sharpening on a slightly blurred image. I am aware that I may be wrong, and removed my oppose (and DXR has a point).
I dont doubt your description of the village, abandoned (or partially abandoned places) are often interesting and often have an very interesting story to tell. But an exciting and unique places does not automatically mean that the picture is exciting and unique. For me, this is a very straightforward QI with a good composition, good lighting conditions and good EV. I look forward to see more pictures taken inside the village. I understand the feeling of walking around in the unique village, but I don't feel that feeling when I look at this picture. I dont think I can explain it better.--ArildV (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dark sky with sunlight on the subject is a good catch, and capturing the whole old village on the hillside makes an interesting composition for me. Whenever I find an image disappointing at 100% for softness or noise, I always pop it into something like IrfanView and reduce it first 75%-original-size then perhaps 50%-original-size with a little sharpening. Here, the 75% size version is still over 11MP and very sharp all over. So I ask myself if an 11MP image offered at FP would have enough wow here. And it does for me here. I'd rather Poco donated his larger image than felt it necessary to heavily downsample to avoid pixel-peeping. -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pixel-peeping is a derogatory term, and I dont think it's fair here. The most reviewers (including me) take into account the images size (In other words, you are not alone), it is one of the considerations when reviewing images (downsampling is not a solution, since we take eventual downsampling into account when reviewing the image). By the way, I upload and nominate full-size images.--ArildV (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ArildV, I think you assume too much of your fellow contributors and you also assume everyone here is as experienced as you with FP expectations and norms. Also, remember my comments aren't just/necessarily pointed at yours. You may well have done as I suggested and still found the image wanting (I can't personally spot any sharpness issues at 75% but perhaps you think then the detail or resolution at 11MP is unexceptional and requires more). But you didn't say you had. So for all the newbies and kids who vote here, are they to read this and assume that pixel peeping is fair game? Because if one reads photography websites it sure is and nothing is desirable less than the latest 36MP A7R with Zeiss glass. Back in the real world, we have lenses mortals can afford, cameras that can only dream of 19MP, heat haze, noise, hand shake, wind... The vast majority of images online are "resized for web" and probably look awful at 100% and Commons is quite unusual in publishing large images for close examination. So you may not need reminding of the dangers of pixel peeping, but in my experience many do. As a newbie reviewer, nothing is easier than opening the image at 100% and finding technical flaws. Oh look, I found some CA in the edges. Far harder and bolder to criticise the composition or lighting, say. Contributors have given up because of pixel peeping complaints at FP and many contributors do downsize heavily to avoid them. I know of no other term than "pixel peeping" to describe an issue apparent only at 100% but that is not felt important for judging. BTW, I don't understand why you struck your oppose. I think your rationale is a valid one and should conclude in you opposing. Be bold! -- Colin (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first thing I said when I saw this image was "wow, I would love to see this place in person". In Canada we have NOTHING like this, and given that context, what might be quite ordinary to some is extraordinary to me. However, I don't think this position is so outside the norm that I felt at all constrained in supporting this image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's always possible I'm being too picky, here, but I'm completely on the fence with this one. The foreground/background contrast is nice, but nothing within the subject itself jumps—it's flat, for lack of a better word. This has a ton of potential; if you were to make this same picture perhaps earlier/later in the day when the buildings' shadows add some dimension, I'd support it in a heartbeat. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage03:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, what a shot! The lighting is awesome and the composition is also really, really nice. The overall quality could be a tad better, but anyway this one rocks! --mathiasK15:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2014 at 20:31:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Salar de Uyuni Décembre 2007 - Panorama 1 edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salar de Uyuni Décembre 2007 - Panorama 1 edit.jpg
Support Unusual subject and I can't find a better picture online let alone on Commons. The resolution/quality isn't quite our finest but then it was taken in 2007 with a 5MP compact camera from 2003 and stitched. I think the rarety of the location/subject mitigates the fact it wasn't taken with the latest pro camera. -- Colin (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support because of the unfortunate right crop, an easy-to-fix issue that makes out a FP. I would even go further and clone out those 4 people Poco218:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture with good quality! S23678 was one of my role models in panorama taking when I begun with this stuff... So I need to support. ;-) --mathiasK15:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2014 at 19:51:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak oppose It's a cool photo, but it looks clearly overprocessed to me, especially the registration plate which is far too gray. I would support a more moderate edit if available. --DXR (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is an overprocessed photo and a reason to oppose, but I love it. It shows exactly how this day was. Cold, wet and hard. Thank you Tomer T for the nomination.--Ritchyblack (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose I've not problem with overprocessed images in FP (I've problems in QI). Nice image, but the wheels are noisy and they are important in the photo. I like the composition--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 15:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the shot but having a hard time to understand what is happening. It crossed the river and is supposed to be stopped, but the water drops and the tire motion would indicate it is moving backwards into the river? Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I can understand your reasoning when I see the water drops on the wheel. But the car drove forward from the river. I think the movement of the water drops is a result by the the brakes or the strong wind (see the flag on the vehicle). --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2014 at 06:04:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Orchis 03.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orchis 03.JPG
Support One is almost required to view this full-sized to see the subtleties within each bloom. This would be an excellent candidate for enlargement and exhibition. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage04:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2014 at 13:42:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jasná Ski Resort - gondola lift to Chopok (2).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jasná Ski Resort - gondola lift to Chopok (2).JPG
Oppose Only a bit overexposed, but too centered and the trees of the first mountais are too dark--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 15:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I almost feel like I'm being too critical, but there's an "eh, it'll have to do" feel about this. I imagined myself moving right so that the left-most cable was overhead or to photo-left, and waiting until the car was closer to contrast the ice-covered support (even if that meant losing the trailing car). Still, I find this worthy. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage04:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2014 at 14:38:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunsetboat.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunsetboat.JPG
Comment Please have a look at the other images nominated here and those that have been promoted before. Unfortunately your image is very unsharp and also not very expectional in any other way and not comparable in quality to the standard here. Please read the guidelines before nominating. --DXR (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2014 (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: Severely out of focus --DXR (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2014 (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.
All I can say is that I know that any attempt at indexing breaks the thumbnailer, so I don't tend to fiddle with such thngs. Far easier to break the thumbnailer than to do good.Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2014 at 17:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jupiter diagram.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jupiter diagram.svg
Question I am not expert in this topic, however, Jupiter has a irregular form not espheric, like the texture over the esphere is not well expanded. But, How you can see here, Jupiter look espheric and regular?. It is only a question, maybe is only my point of view. Thanks --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, though I find the pink core slightly distracting. Are the inside colors arbitrary or following something? --DXR (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OMG NO ARE YOU REAL. You are literally the first person on Commons to ever recognize the font!! Glad to know some people here have an appreciation for fine typography ;). Frutiger is my favvv 😊—Love, Kelvinsongtalk22:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you provide a list of translations that would speed up the process a lot, otherwise I'll probably have a Spanish version in a few days. Translations of these diagrams are always hard bc you have a lot of technical phrases like "North-north temparate belt" & "Gossamer ring" && words that usually aren't adjetives being used as adjetives that are hard to translate.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 15:11:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Råsunda February 2013 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Råsunda February 2013 02.jpg
InfoRåsunda Stadium (host of the 1958 world cup final) and in the background the new Friends Arena (inaugurated in October 2012). Råsunda was Swedish national football stadium 1937-2012. It was a unique photo opportunity just before the demolition of Råsunda started. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose To me it was not obvious what was the subject of the picture, and even after reading the description I still couldn't say without doubts which building we are talking about. I guess that from that location 70 mm was not enough to stand out the subject. Further I am not sure why you placed it that low and so far to the left, I'd centered it a bit more. Sharpness is good but not outstanding and both sides are leaning out a bit. I imagine that the reason for the chosen shutter speed, low DoF and resulting composition is that you had to be quick (commercial flight?), and I have to say that under that condition the shot is really good but still not a FP to me, sorry. Poco218:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in both the description here and on the file page, the image captures both the old national stadium and its replacement (Friends arena) in the same image. I cant at all understand why a different focal length had made a difference, the distance between the stadiums are over one kilometer. For once I dont think your comment make any sence, I can of course center the two stadiums by a further crop but it will just make the both arenas a smaller part of the images and make it harder for you see "which building we are talking about " (what's the point of that?) I can not see any better way to include both stadiums in the same picture, I can not see any photographic tricks that make the stadiums to "stand out" better.
With all due respect Diego, I don't think you take into enough account the image qualities. The image has historical value (the only free aerial image showing both venues), Råsunda is a historic arena (one of the few that has hosted the world cup final in soccer for both men and women), the quality is not bad compared to other aerial FP (especially considering that it covers several square kilometers!), picture could only be taken from a chartered helicopter (if you were lucky and got permission to fly as close to Bromma Airport, and the stadium is demolished today).--ArildV (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Arild, I got it wrong. I looks that I didn't read the description carefully and came to the conclusion that the subject was only the stadium in the bottom left corner. Therefore my judge was based on a wrong premise, I take my oppose back and leave it just as a comment. Poco213:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support While the photo is certainly not quite perfect, as mentioned before (especially the color cast IMO, however I am not very familiar with northern light and accept that this might have been unavoidable), I believe that the EV is significant and the photo is probably unique. --DXR (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2014 at 19:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Funkturm Arsenal Wien DSC 7717w.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Funkturm Arsenal Wien DSC 7717w.jpg
Info The so-called "Postturm" (official name "Funkturm Wien-Arsenal" is a 155m high tower of reinforced concrete. On it's top are antennas for radio and television broadcast, point-to-point radio systems and base station controller for mobile telephony. The middle platform is housing an operating room.
Comment Why so much sky at the top? The eye is drawn there, as if the spire points to something we can't see. Personally, I'd crop that down a bit. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage22:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 15:17:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Solsbury Hill.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Solsbury Hill.jpg
Info A few words of the guidelines: Symbolic meaning or relevance Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image (to read more about it), not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations…
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2014 at 21:45:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tintern Church Hill.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tintern Church Hill.jpg
Support an excellent study in contrasts, both in terms of what's in the picture (life from death, as it were) and what's not (the portrait aspect lends to the mystery). The cloud formation also frames the subject to near-perfection. Nice snap. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage22:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is just algae and moss on the stone. The stone is quite yellow to begin with and the sun is low. The white dove on the church is quite white and if the cast was green I would have expected it to be off. What led you to this concern? Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2014 at 07:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I like the plant, a lot; but the image itself seems flat. Even at full size, the highlights don't jump, the shadows don't contrast. Maybe it's just me. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage03:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just my own opinion here. I prefer proper, serious overhead shots for flowers, unless you are shooting sidewards to show dew on the stamen, bees on the flower etc. --(✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 14:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to dislike overhead, symmetrical shots of plants, although here it does seem justified to me. My only concern is whether a higher F number wouldn't have given better results. Gidip (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think I'm with Jee here. And when a overhead I think a little stack would work much better too increase the dof. Now the focus fits perfect but I miss more "deepness". --mathiasK15:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact that the second circle of petals seems to be situated before the focus point is a bit problematic. It is a good image but if we add the fact that the subject does not distance itself from the background, certainly not your fault but... Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2014 at 19:22:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:SRP entrance close.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:SRP entrance close.JPG
Comment I doubt your picture is free of copyright. We don't have FoP for 3D/2D artworks and there it's absolutely not de minimis as it makes up over a quarter of the photograph. --CyberXRef☎05:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me I need to back off from the sculpture to make it less prominent, or that it can't be prominent at all (if in fact in the image at all, given that its absence markedly alters the image)? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage06:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, something seemed a bit off, and I just figured it out; I wanted the sculpture to appear to be pointing to the directory as if welcoming the viewer to browse, but at this angle it also appears to block the entrance. Given that and the potential copyright issues, I'll make some more attempts next time I'm up there. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage02:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2014 at 16:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trombidium holosericeum Woblitz01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trombidium holosericeum Woblitz01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2014 at 10:49:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GLIMPSE360poster.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GLIMPSE360poster.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2014 at 05:47:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Río Saigón, Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 21.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Río Saigón, Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 21.JPG
Oppose Call me a killjoy but I cannot see what is featureable here. Quality is high (excellent FF camera + ISO 100, 1/320 - no wonder!), but motive and composition are too ordinary for me. I have also problems with the light because nearly the complete ship is in unfortunate shadow (only tiny areas at the nose and on the front parts of the containers receive some light). Motive: If you walk for instance through Hamburg you have much more impressive container ships than this one. You could have made this photo special if more of the surronding context had been visible. As it is here, it is just a (relatively boring) ship in any harbour in any country. A well done documentary photo of a ship but imho no FP, sorry. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what is extraordinary to me (feeling like a fragile tiny thing next to a huge container ship which is 50 times bigger that the boat I am in, and looking at the ship from the bottom how it pass by), may be ordinary to you, no problem with that. Regarding the place (Saigon river in Ho Chi Minh City), it may also be ordinary to you but to me it is not what I would call a place around the corner in my home city. Poco207:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned about giving so much importance to where the image was taken. Wikimedia Commons is a global project and have a global perspective. It is true that users from Europe (especially Western Europe) are over-represented here, but should it really affect the assessment of the images? Are pictures from Vietnam more exotic and therefore have a bigger wow? Ho Chi Minh City metropolitan area is populated by more than 9,000,000 people and Vietnamn have more then 90 million inhabitant (more inhabitants than Berlin and Germany), no remote or difficult to reach location.--ArildV (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you didn't focus it the way I mean. Vietnam is not more exotic than Spain globally (but it is, of course, to my person). If we were flooded of high quality pictures from Vietnam then my comment would not be accurate, but right now in the category of Quality images of Vietnam you will only find pictures of Prenn (mostly flowers) and mine. So, although Commons is a global project, a big majority of the photographers and reviewers here come from Europe and America and will more likely be familiar to cities like Berlin, Madrid, Paris or London than Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi or Phnom Penh. To me usually it will have more wow seeing something I haven't ever seen before than something I have seen in person. Poco211:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2014 at 15:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Burg Altendorf 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Burg Altendorf 2014.jpg
Weak oppose Good quality and high EV but to my perception the subject is not really outstanding. The shadows don't help either (too harsh), probably there are better lighting conditions to shot from that angle. Poco218:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Motive is a matter of personal taste - for me it is interesting enough. But I strongly disagree with your comment on the light - I imho the large bright sun side of the building and the remarkable smaller shadow side give the building depth which had not been there with complete flat and homogeneous lighting conditions. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The square crop would work better if it was more centered on the building, here for this composition I think there is too much grass. The shadow at left is also problematic because the blue footbridge catches the eye exactly towards this shadow. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Christian, thanks for the review. I thought for a long time about the crop and decided this way. If you take a closer look on the different shadows of the trees you will see that I tried to use them as frame around the building. IMHO the shadows are not really problematic because the building is well lid and catches enough attention. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A thing is sure, the image is good and interesting. And I agree in 200 % that a good photographer must try to integrate at his best all the elements which can be disturbing, power lines, cranes, shadows, ect... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2014 at 01:04:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Americo-avaí.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Americo-avaí.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2014 at 07:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Karpovka River Embankment 06.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Karpovka River Embankment 06.jpg
Comment There is air communication cabling (TV, internet, telephony). Сables are everywhere, and we have no chance to take picture in the old city without wires in a frame. In fact, these cables above the streets became a part of our urban atmosphere. Alas... --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am certainly no fan of powerlines, but these don't detract from the main subject in a substantial way. However, a slight crop on the left, right and top could minimize them even more and improve the overall composition (see note for an approximation). Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Except for the spider web away from the camera, the power lines work for me. The perspective seems to point left, toward where the clouds are "gathering", adding to the mystique (as in, "hey, what's going on over there?!"). My preference would have been to crop out the cars camera-right; that this is a roadway seemed to detract from the romance, as it were. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage03:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]