Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2009

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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


File:Epitonium scalare shell.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 11:38:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 07:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Middelgrunden wind farm 2009-07-01 edit filtered.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2009 at 21:21:51
Middelgrunden offshore wind farm, Øresund, Denmark

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, edited, and nominated by Slaunger - further edits (color correction, dust spot removal) by Richard Bartz -- Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info When built in 2000, Middelgrunden offshore wind farm (40 MW) was the worlds largest offshore wind farm supplying 3% of the electricity for Copenhagen. Since offshore wind farms are raised on the most windy areas it is quite unusual to observe them in glossy sea as here. There was a special haze this warm summer day where the sky and the sea horizon was almost unseparable, which made the sight very unusual (for me at least). --Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - you missed a dust spot (2nd tower from the left, lhs, 1/3 way up)......Symbol support vote.svg Support - Peripitus (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for noticing and reviewing my image. I see what appears to be a spot at the location you mention in the image page preview, but I cannot see it at all in full resolution (so I would not know how to fix it). Can you see it in full resolution? Maybe it is introduced by the sharpnening which is applied in the preview creation process? --Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very nice composition, but could perhaps use even more color adjustment. Maybe something like this? (Note: I'm not nominating my version as an alternative, at least not yet.) Also, I suspect both versions could use some more tweaking to fix compression artifacts e.g. around the blades. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with you that your more colorful edit is more impressive and eye-catching, and in a previous version of the file I had a quite similar edit. However, I decided to go for a less drastic saturation, as these flashy National Geographic-like edits (this is not intended as criticism of you) are simply not being representative of the subject I am trying to illustrate. I think that since the WMF scope is to provide educational and informational content there is a point in not bending reality too much in trying to get something which looks nice and eye-catching. In the edit I have nominated Richard and I have bent reality to an extend where I still find it justifiable for illustrative and educational purposes. Of course other users may have different opinions or views on this, which I respect. --Slaunger (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Comment concerning compression artifacts, I acknowledge that traces thereof are visible at the edge of the wings. I really do not know what can be done of that (or if anything should be done). I do not think it is visible at normal viewing resolutions/distances. The image was taken with "finest" jpeg resolution and I have saved intermediate edits in at least 93% jpeg quality (I do not know which quality Richard has used, but knowing his professionalism I would guess a quite high one as well). --Slaunger (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, and I also think Ilmari's edit is very oversaturated. --Aqwis (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A rather dreamy picture, almost looks computer generated. Nice work. --Calibas (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Downtowngal (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Calibas. Very surreal. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome picture. My hat goes off to the photographer. -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition, but it's just too blurry (poor quality). —kallerna™ 09:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It is my understanding that the blur is caused by the aforementioned "haze", and therefore part of the scenery. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The original taken with 1/500s exposure and f/20 is in my opinion crisp and clear and has a very good DOF, if you look at the edge structure of the wings and and the masts of the wind mills. The rest of the original has no clear structure, but that is due to the aforementioned glossy sea and haze. The original has other problems though, as it is quite noisy (despite ISO 100) and somewhat underexposed. In the following post processing further noise was visible following curves correction, and I was concerned that I would have to apply a too agressive noise reduction to bring it to a tolerable level - at the cost of loss of detail. In the end I did apply a rather aggressive noise reduction using Noiseware, but was positively surprised that I did not seem to loose noticeable details in the structure of the turbines. The sea looks very glossy afterwards and there is no clear separation between sea and sky, but that matches what I saw. I admit that a little detail has been lost in the finer details of the reflections of the wind mills at the lower edge of the image and at a few wing tips placed at the end of the curve, but that was the postprocessing compromise I made to reach the best end result. In hindsight I would have gotten a more optimal result if I had increased the exposure time for the original a tad when I took it and I respect if other reviewers find the non-optimal starting point has compromized the end result too much. --Slaunger (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • f/20 is probably too much for a sharp image. --Muhammad (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Difficult to get shot + decent technique + interesting subject + informative value = fraturable picture. Simple. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – It looks like more than just haze to me – f/20 may have caused some serious diffractions. From an image like that I expect a better quality and a little more crispness. --Ernie (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AlexAH (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jklamo (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 07:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geneva mechanism 6spoke animation.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2009 at 10:34:23
This animation shows a six-position Geneva Mechanism in operation

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mike1024 - uploaded by Luigi Chiesa - nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason for nomination: Extremely clear animation illustrating a difficult-to-explain mechanism. Already featured on two Wikipedias. We really need more featured diagrams and animations. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very smooth and clear animation, I think it deserves the FP status. Looking forward to seeing a bigger file if it exists, otherwise it doesn't matter. →Diti the penguin — 10:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm surprised to see a mass agreeing, I thought FP reviewers were all the “follow the rules no matter what” type. ;) →Diti the penguin — 01:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Simple, smooth, concise and very informative. And a very interesting mechanism. Thank you for nominating something different! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit small but very well presented. /Daniel78 (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very well done. --Calibas (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ---donald- (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As JovanCormac and others. The Museum of Science and Industry in Birmingham used to have a display of this and many other such mechanisms dating mostly from the 19th century (some earlier), which were very informative on the ingenuity of our industrial ancestors before electronics took much of the skill out of machinery. Sadly, this is one of the things lost to the people of (and visitors to) Birmingham when the then Labour administration closed this free museum and transferred many exhibits to the Think Tank to the loss of the people of Birmingham. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it is an intriguing illustration of this mechanical device, but the illustration with its plain coloration simply has not the delicate and professional look and feel and technical quality I would expect from an FP, which could appear on the main page. A 3D rendered version, which shades, texture etc please, see, e.g., File:Simple CV Joint animated.gif for an example of more worked through graphics. --Slaunger (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO it is the fact that this is not a 3D animation that makes it so very clear to see what is going on. 3D often distracts with textures and unnecessary shading and lighting. As long as the structure in question isn't 3D itself (such as the CV Joint), 2D illustrations can be much more clear and legible. -- JovanCormac (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you that this is an important difference between the planar geometry nominated here and the example I gave. To clarify what I meant, I do not mind the current quite simple isometric representation and its current angle of view (which is also three-dimensional as the sheet objects used has to have finite thickness). What I would like to see is a more delicate coloration of the surfaces including light sources, shading and more realistic colors (metallic). That would IMO not distract from understanding the mechanism. In a more sophisticated animation the mechanism could be shown in a real mechanical watch application, where the watch parts interfacing to the mechanism could be shown half-transparent and let the mechanism stand out. Having the mechanism shown in a specific application could give an even better understanding of the purpose of the mechanism. I am not saying that this illustration is in any way bad, I just feel there are so many ways such an illustration could be made even more informative and interesting to look at as an observer. --Slaunger (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Don't forget that JovanCormac is not the creator of this image, only the Nominator, so he is in the same boat as the rest of us in discussing some of the details.) I agree that the simple illustration we have here is lacking some of those "work of art" aspects which would make it "Picture of the Day". The shading Slaunger asks for would be nice. If someone uploads such a version, make sure that Jovan is told so that he can nominate that one as a replacement for this. Meanwhile, this is (IMO with an Engineering BSc) an acceptable illustration of how this mechanism works. William of Occam rules OK. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the combination of this clean, simple drawing and such smooth animation. --Lošmi (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Outstanding animation. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - The lunar-shaped section (in green), what is it for? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm not a mechanics expert, it looks to me as if the round side holds the red wheel in place while the half-moon side is cut out so that the red wheel may slide through. The green shape really seems to be the shape generated by the movement of the whole mechanism, and therefore quite optimal. -- JovanCormac (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm also no engineer, but without the crescent insert the red wheel would keep spinning after the green rod lets it go (due to the inertia) and would drift out of position, rendering the setup useless. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 07:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guillaume Delisle North West Africa 1707.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2009 at 17:22:58
Old map of North Africa

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Guillaume Delisle - uploaded by Ephraim33 - crop, hi-res upload and nominated by Jklamo -- Jklamo (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jklamo (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a clear winner. Amazing detail there. -- JovanCormac (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question There is no image that appear.--Ocre (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Click through the links: [1] --Aqwis (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can't find the picture - not displayed on Featured Picture Candidates page, and clicking through links gets to the "cannot be displayed ... because it contains errors" mesage. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Full resolution works ok, smaller does not work, some of them are showing older noncropped version. I have no idea, where is problem. --Jklamo (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uploaded a bit differently compressed version, thumbs now work. --Jklamo (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a pity that there being no thumbnail seems to prevent this picture from receiving enough votes to make FP. Truly, this is one of the most detailed old maps on commons! -- JovanCormac (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really, really good. Maedin\talk 13:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 07:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of St. Andrew, Alfriston, England Crop - May 2009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2009 at 20:09:59
Church of St Andrew, Alfriston 

result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 07:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Play Voices from Chernobyl.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 00:19:45
Play "Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster" from Svetlana Alexievitch, Geneva, April 25, 2009.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The light was very low, yet I feel that the actress expression is amazing. Yann (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We really need more pictures of people, and this one is nice at low res, but at high res it is far too blurry for a FP. -- JovanCormac (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with JovanCormac, too blurry. --Eusebius (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this one good enough? It is still much over 2 Mpixel. Yann (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, not for me. Plus, there's no "wow" for me (personal opinion). --Eusebius (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 07:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Timon pater tangitanus-Prague ZOO.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 22:50:32
Timon pater tangitanus (North african ocellated lizard) in Prague ZOO(taken through the glass) 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 07:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Summer - statue in Oppeln.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2009 at 00:24:59
"Summer" - statue in Opole (Oppeln, Uopole), Upper Silesia 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 07:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Titan-crystal bar.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 12:22:35
The chemical element Titanium, as a crystal bar 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006-01-15 coin on water.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 12:20:16
Coin on water

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Noisy, the resolution is far below the guidelines, contrast and sharpness could be a lot better, too. This was nominated over 3 years ago (and barely got featured), and would probably not be featured today. While the effect of floating a coin on water is certainly hard to achieve, once it is done the water glass does not make a hard subject to photograph. The effect itself is therefore no excuse for the poor image quality. This is a valued image, not a featured one. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist —kallerna™ 13:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist For surface tension, this is a far superior image. Maedin\talk 18:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. What a picture. I didn't know it. Should probably be a Valued Image. -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Featured on En. Why not on Commons? Maedin\talk 19:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist - Too small and nothing special. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --ianaré (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Karel (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist size! --JalalV (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hatiora ×graeseri flower.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:19:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rock life.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:22:03


Result: 4 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common blue damselfly02.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:22:59
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common snail.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:23:50
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BrockenBahnWinter.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:24:35
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:EuropeanParliament.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:25:16
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from Mardin to the Mesopotamian plains.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:26:03
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Severe quality issues. Just take a look. -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist —kallerna™ 06:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist I love the compostion of this one, and several of the other delisting candidates. I'd love for someone to reshoot these pictures at an acceptable standard for FP. I'd do it myself, but being a uni student in Australia... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand what you mean, and IMO the only reason why these images have not lost their FP status much earlier is the fact that their composition is so cool. But being simple landscape shots this is just no excuse for the quality, so they have to go from the FP library. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Composition is great, resolution is acceptable. Quality is not the best, but i think that is a problem of camera, not photographer. Also i am not able to find any better pic of subject in its category. --Jklamo (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - Resolution is high, and the quality is good enough for me. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep As above. --Karel (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - Downtowngal (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 4 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LosAngeles04.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 16:40:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Daniel78 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SalzburgerAltstadt02.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 16:43:48
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 7 delist, 1 keep, 1 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australia Cairns 01.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 16:46:35
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Inacceptable quality by today's FP standards, notably JPEG artifacts, lots of noise and shallow DOF. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist —kallerna™ 06:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - It has enough DoF to me, and is aesthetically good
    Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request - Perhaps a small noise reduction is all that it needs... someone? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Karel (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Quite beautiful, I would like it to stay even though it might not have gone in by todays standards. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --JalalV (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 4 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WernigerodeCastleWinter.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 14:39:25
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Glaring quality issues. Sharpness is terrible, size is borderline. Little more than a snapshot. Attempt has been made to delist before (Link). Hard to believe this was ever featured. It's time we rid the FP library of this dinosaur! -- JovanCormac (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Unfortunate quality issues. Maedin\talk 19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist —kallerna™ 06:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist - At first I thought this image must not be delisted, but in full size, the picture is extremely blurry, lets get rid of it. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --JalalV (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pinguicula vulgaris.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 14:34:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): The quality issues are obvious. At first I thought this was an underwater photograph, explaining the poor quality for a FP, but when I looked the plant up it turned out to be just a common weed. Thus the poor contrast, lack of sharpness and poor composition are inexcusable for the FP category. -- JovanCormac (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Surprised this was ever featured, :-/ Maedin\talk 19:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist —kallerna™ 06:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist - What a low quality! - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Karel (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. --JalalV (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eyjafjallajökull.jpeg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 12:37:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Another dinosaur from the early days of "Featured Pictures". No chance this would make FP today. It is extremely blurry, noisy, looks overprocessed as well as seemingly cut from a postcard(?) on the bottom left (black fade). -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Love the composition, but multiple quality problems. —kallerna™ 13:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Really like it, but quality just is not good. I think that continuing to consider these images "featured" is a damage to Commons' reputation. Maedin\talk 18:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - The image looks nice to me, but the colors are strange. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Cold colors but it kind of suits the motive. Not bad enough. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep As Daniel78. Cold colors suit the picture. --JalalV (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep best colors --Luc Viatour (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 4 delist, 3 keep, 1 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Set Candidate - Platonic Solids Stereo Animations, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 11:36:26
Tetrahedron
Cube
Octahedron
Dodecahedron
Icosahedron

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Animated stereo[2] images of the five Platonic solids, unfolding & refolding themselves to highlight their structure. Recommended viewing distance: 30-50 cm. Designed & rendered with Wolfram Mathematica 7, assembled & optimized with Ulead GIF Animator 5. See User:JovanCormac for a page with all the animations at full size. -- JovanCormac (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Caution: Internet Explorer has difficulty displaying high-quality, large animated GIFs smoothly. Using Firefox or another alternative browser is highly recommended for optimal viewing. -- JovanCormac (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poor Kepler. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Why is each object displayed twice? --Ernie (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It isn't. The right vesion is slightly rotated to the left. Those are not normal pictures, but autostereograms which can be viewed in 3D (you probably know Magic Eye). For more information, and viewing instructions, see [3]. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info (ec) I'd assume it's because they're stereograms. You're supposed to uncross your eyes to see them in 3D. (Incidentally, having the different images side by side is really distracting when you try to do that. I've been bold and added some <br> tags above to make the layout more stereo-friendly. Oh, and these are not autostereograms, just plain old stereograms.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for aligning the pictures, Ilmari. And yes, those are autostereograms, not just stereograms. From Wikipedia: "Autostereograms are similar to normal stereograms except they are viewed without a stereoscope." Well, to view those images, you only need to cross your eyes, not use a stereoscope. -- JovanCormac (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC) The relevant Wikipedia articles seem not to distinguish precisely between stereogram and autostereogram. I have relabeled the series as simply "stereograms" to avoid confusion. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that sentence is meant to be a definition, merely a description. It certainly doesn't match the definition of "autostereogram" that I'm aware of, which is essentially what's given in the terminology section of the article, as well as the lead sentence: "An autostereogram is a single-image stereogram [...]". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To me it looks like the sides do are not stiched together completely, like there is a small gap as both the background and the edges are white. ( I can't judge the stereo part of this as I have never managed to see the 3D in such images although I have tried many times ). /Daniel78 (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd support the dodecahedron but I'm not sure they all should be FPs. --Calibas (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That's awesome! →Diti the penguin — 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cool --Muhammad (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Svgalbertian (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very cool. Time3000 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support useful and well made, good job ! --ianaré (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oooh! Normally, I simply ignore animations as I find myself unable to judge them adequately. I find most animations quite simplistic and crude, mostly due to the limitations of technology and filesize. I was about to ignore this one (a bunch of rotating shapes), when I read that it was a 3D image. Once you cross your eyes in the right way and see the 3D, it is really well done! Good job, and I definitely support! --JalalV (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kloster Ebrach BW 7.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 16:03:44
SHORT DESCRIPTION

There was no tripod allowed --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral, 1 invalid => not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vlinder1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 18:53:27
black and white lepidopter on a flower

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by hrald - uploaded by hrald - nominated by hrald -- Hrald (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hrald (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice, I think. Size is on the low side, though it still meets requirements. Maedin\talk 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice picture, and has a lot to commend it. Sadly, it is only 1.6MPx, so it has no chance of FP status. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The picture is beautiful, and the black butterfly is unusual. But it is a fact that it's below the size recommendation and we don't have so few butterfly pictures that it would make up for this, to put it mildly... -- JovanCormac (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to Symbol support vote.svg Support. hrald has uploaded a higher-res version that meets all the requirements and is just as beautiful. ID is still needed though, but I am sure someone will be able to do it. -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the size has been changed, this was my first upload, I took the wrong (small) size per mistake!! hope it still has a chance becoming a fp now:-)--Hrald (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice shot, but noisy and still unidentified. --Olei (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Olei. —kallerna™ 06:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Identification of the species is not an FP criteria. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Theoretically it doesn't need even an image description because it's not written in the guidelines ? Of course it should be identified to make it valuable.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 08:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As long it's unindentified   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 08:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might oppose because it doesn't have a decent description (filename and description which says butterfly!), which indeed lowers its value. Some seem to demand species id (which admittedly the above comments don't), but often it is better for amateurs to identify at higher level en:Euploea than make inaccurate guesses at the exact species. I don't believe amateur guesses add to value. So maybe we agree :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to be a biologist to identify insects. There are hundreds of useful forums (started with en:WP or de:WP) where you can get a identification of your images.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony - Vlinder is butterfly in Dutch! So it is in the file name. But I guess if it's in Eng Wikipedia, it ought to be in english..- Ashley

Yes, that is what I said, filename and description both just say 'butterfly' in different languages - Dutch and Latin. A rather inadequate description. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now that the image is sufficient resolution. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info After doing some research (on wikipedia!:-)) I found the butterfly likely to be a:

Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Order: Lepidoptera Family: Nymphalidae Subfamily:Danainae Genus: Euploea Species: E. core

I posted this picture to see if it could make the featured picture status, not because of the subject being a Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Danainae Euploea E. core. It was not mentioned in the rules for becoming a featured picture to have a 100% sufficient description. IMHO the name of the subject adds nothing to the photographic quality of a picture. I would never upload an insufficient named cq labeled picture to a wiki article! greetings--Hrald (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Black is black... Colors composition. --Karel (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too less contrast with background, especially in left top. Strange artefacts in white spots of forewing. Indentification is doubtful, there are some other very similar species. We have already enough wrong identified insects. Location where image was taken is missing (could help to identify). --Hsuepfle (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ornamental Alphabet - 16th Century.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 12:45:32
Ornamental latin alphabet

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Delamotte, F - vectorized, uploaded & nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Beautiful ornamental alphabet from the 16th century, vectorized for cleanest appearance. Must be seen at a large size to fully appreciate, recommend looking at [4]. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vectorized? Wow... Durova (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice work.   ■ MMXXtalk  17:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wow - Keta (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The quick supports make me happy, and confirm my belief that we should nominate many more non-photo pictures for FP. The site I got the scanned original from - [5] - is a true treasure of public domain images. I believe we should import most, if not all of them into Commons over time. The book this picture is from (Ornamental Alphabets, Ancient and Mediæval) also contains a lot more beautiful alphabets, and I believe that I can vectorize most of the others in similar quality. -- JovanCormac (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportgreat job, clean appearance at large size!! :-)--Hrald (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great work.--Claus (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have vectorized the other alphabets from the book as well (except for the really plain ones). You can see them at my userpage. -- JovanCormac (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I completely agree that more graphic material like this should be featured. GerardM (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is just stunning. Best use of vectors I've seen in a long time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, wow! --Kjetil_r 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have made border improvements and a slight decrease in fie size: File:Ornamental Alphabet - 16th Century edit.svg. ZooFari 23:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't sure whether I should do this or preserve the look from the original book, but now I am convinced that it does in fact look far better! Great job! Please replace the picture with your version, it really is superior. -- JovanCormac (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On second thought, I just realized that your method of adding borders compromised some of the original detail and balance close to the borders of a few letters, e.g. on the letters "T" and "V", the feet of the griffins are now uncomfortably close to the border, as are the tree trunks. While I still think that the "clean" borders look far better than the original ones, I believe adding them should be done in a way that doesn't damage the original interior. I'll look into it again later today. Comments are welcome. -- JovanCormac (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I did a thorough restoration (took almost 2 hours) of the entire image, fixing the borders as suggested by ZooFari (but without touching the interior), patching holes & tears (with the help of another scan of the same page at [6]) and splitting the image into the separate letters and aligning them along a grid. For anyone who has liked the previous version, I recommend looking at the restoration. It really is a huge improvement. -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fantastic vectorization! --JalalV (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG 0839 Yarlong Tsangpo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 10:14:45
Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibet.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Lucag - uploaded by Lucag - nominated by The Evil IP address -- The Evil IP address (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well, I just randomly came across that picture, and I really like it. It's a nice landscape: We see a river that is so long that the mountains are only visible in the background. You know, it makes me really feel like wanting to go there and seeing this beautiful landscape with my own eyes. Considering all the technical things, I can't think of anything that could be opposed, however I admit I'm still a n00b in that area. Thank you for your consideration. -- The Evil IP address (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice landscape shot --AngMoKio (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pretty good. Sky is somewhat noisy, but within an acceptable range. Maedin\talk 19:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Slightly overprocessed, but very nice image. -- MJJR (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise in the sky is too visible for me, clouds are partly overexposed. --Eusebius (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support,1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tyto alba 2 Luc Viatour.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 10:53:59
Barn owl in flight 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tyto alba 1 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 10:51:31
Barn Owl in flight 

result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lightning 14.07.2009 20-42-33.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 11:14:02
Lightning over Schaffhausen, Switzerland.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Simisa, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning picture of lightnings. The "wow" is certainly there. Yann (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You beat me to it! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question How come one sees four birds with different shades of grey in the middle? -- Klaus with K (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I guess it is from the stroboscopic effect of the lightning during the exposure time of 2 seconds, i.e. the bird appears only during the short period of the bolts. -- Simisa (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC) -- The explanation of Simisa is correct: probably we have four images of one and the same bird during its flight. -- MJJR (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This stroboscopic effect IMO adds quite a bit of value to the picture, and should probably be mentioned in the image description. It is also what makes me Symbol support vote.svg Support this nomination. -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per answer to my question above - the bird really tells you about timing and relative intensities. -- Klaus with K (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Matasg 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snug Falls 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 12:12:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Thanks for the information. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erinaceus europaeus 3.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 12:57:37
West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, o neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:College of Arms-Lant's Roll.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 22:17:27
An image of the coat of arms of the College of Arms from a 1595 manuscript called Lant's Roll, created by Thomas Lant. 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Svgalbertian (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 15:18:33
young Lama

Yes it is the moon, the picture is made 300mmm. --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kleiner Fuchs, Aglais urticae.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 21:00:29
Kleiner Fuchs, Aglais urticae 

result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Balerdi Azkarate gainean.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 21:42:21
Picture of Balerdi mountain.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Keta - uploaded by Keta - nominated by Keta -- Keta (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Keta (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Oppose}}, the white balance is a bit off. Fix this, and I'll support. --Aqwis (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ✓ Done The previous version had the white balance unchanged, just as the camera took it, but you were right, even the clouds were yellowish. - Keta (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  17:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice shot, but please add a heading parameter to the location template. --Kjetil_r 23:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I replaced camera location with object location. I think it's more descriptive this way, you can see in a map where the place is, rather than where the camera was. Anyway, if you prefer I can put camera location and heading information. - Keta (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Consensus on commons is camera location (BTW for good reasons). -- Klaus with K (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • ✓ Done Detailed enough now? - Keta (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kjetil_r 16:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hsuepfle (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trompette - premier piston - montage perspective.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 22:16:41
A trumpet piston valve.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Eusebius (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is a very nice illustration of a trumpet piston valve. Especially the exploded view on the RHS is well made, the techniques in the montage and background removal is good, the overall image quality and lightning is good as well. Only a pity that the valve appear worn and smudged. I think you could have achieved a better result if each part had been carefully polished and cleaned before doing the photos, but the overall result is still good enough for me. --Slaunger (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't apply anything but valve oil on the sliding part, and I certainly wouldn't perform any "mechanical" process on it, it is a precision mechanism. But the inside is dirty, yes, however it is really a pain in the neck to clean those little parts. For info I have already spent more than an hour cleaning the instrument before shooting. --Eusebius (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI see your point and I also think it is satisfactory as is - otherwise I would not have supported in the first place. --Slaunger (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose valued images--Claus (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll probably nominate it at VI as well, with other candidates. --Eusebius (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We need more and better illustrations. Graphics as a category are underrepresented.. And "valued images" is not valued at all. GerardM (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - as supporters. Downtowngal (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, o neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polar bears near north pole.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 10:25:23
Polar bears approach submarine 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus)1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 14:08:26
Erinaceus europaeus, west european hedgehog 

result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Can't please everyone2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 16:30:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Walter Crane - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova: restored version of File:Can't please everyone.jpg. -- Durova (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info From an 1887 children's edition of Aesop's fables.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While the resolution is high and the scan quality good, I find the dotted printing distracting and the picture overall a little less than amazing. -- JovanCormac (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The dotted printing, typical of printing of that date, is not that much of a problem. What is interesting, and would commend it as a Valued Picture, is the way the whole fable is told in one image. Question. Did you upload this image as a commentary on the sometimes unpredictable voting on FP Candidates? -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sort of a sly commentary on certain wiki behaviors. Not particularly those at FPC. Durova (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- This was state of the art printing at the time (it is a scan of a first edition). GerardM (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice story, great restoration. Yann (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The artwork is not special enough. Downtowngal (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both as an interesting and useful restoration, and a lesson that holds even truer today. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oil platform P-51 (Brazil).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 17:44:51
Oil platform P-51

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Agência Brasil - uploaded by Dantadd - nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is a striking photo of a very interesting subject, and it surprises me that it has not been nominated before. Detail is great, sharpness good for a photo taken from sea, resolution is quite high and there is zero noise. -- JovanCormac (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very high quality. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perfect --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've actually looked for good oil platform -photo. —kallerna™ 09:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, what about the many jpg compression artifacts? --Kjetil_r 23:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Name one. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 17:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll call him Frank. --Calibas (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fossil Bay Seascape 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 02:01:54
SHORT DESCRIPTION

What a nice welcome!--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you might be jumping to conclusions a little fast there Noodle. Everyone has to start somewhere. I began my own stay on Commons by reviewing interesting pictures people had nominated, if you remember, yet I wasn't assumed to be sockpuppet. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll wait until I get home to my own monitor before I review your picture; the monitors here at work are horrible. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to loose my time to look for more examples and I pardon the silly suspicion of yours. I know you are upset I opposed your image.--Two+two=4 (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC) [reply] 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morus bassanus adu.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 14:15:42
Morus bassanus flying 

result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atmosphere composition diagram.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 15:50:35
Atmosphere composition

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Phillipe Recacewicz - uploaded by RedAndr - nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A highly detailed and aesthetically pleasing SVG diagram showing the composition of the atmosphere as well as the effects of various anthropogenic factors on it. -- JovanCormac (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - IMO, the "cities" are overemphasized and "industry" and "transportation" are underemphasized, giving an erroneous message about what is causing the problem. Downtowngal (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this is very well put together. The detail is great. -- Julielangford (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) - not valid vota, after voting period[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aialik glacier pano.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 19:08:38
Aialik glacier

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Aialik, the largest tidewater glacier in Kenai Fjords National Park. All by ianaré (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The quality! Unbelievable. -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please fill in the date field on the file page. Is it a stitch? If so, please add some details about how on the image page. You could add a heading to your location, that would make a cool (no pun intended) pointer towards the glacier. Last but not least. I've tried making such images of glaciers in North-West Greenland. I found it quite hard to do in good quality (I never uploaded any images, because I was not satisfied with the result), and I must say the technical quality and detail level of the ice in the glacier is impressive. --Slaunger (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the kind words ! I added the date info. The image is a composite of 5 vertical exposures. Hardest part was keeping the movement of the boat manageable (as with almost all my pics, a tripod was not used). I don't know how to add direction info, can you advise ? --ianaré (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – Ernie (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment – I guess the third description language is not English. --Ernie (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  18:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - beautiful and valuable. Downtowngal (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —kallerna™ 10:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have now had time to carefully inspect the image, and it is very good. The only observations I had were some minor, peculiar looking patches in the ocean surface at the lower edge of the photo, which looks a little artificial, as if Hugin had some stitching problems there (it is not easy to stitch sea, because it has changed from one image to the other), and/or as if noise reduction has been appllied a little too agressively on the icean surface. --Slaunger (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Moved my support to the marginally better edit. --Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made an alternate version (see below) which fixes some of these problems. --ianaré (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination above version only, in favor of alternate version below. --ianaré (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate version, featured

Aialik glacier 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stalinian architecture in Moscow (Kudrinskaya Square Building).JPG, not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info One of "Seven Sisters" (Building on Kudrinskaya Square). View from Moscow Zoo territory. Taken by me in May 2008.--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment First an encouragement for a nomination from Moscow. It is refreshing to see new Russian nominations. I have some problems with the composition of the photo, especially the left hand side, where the leaves and the stone construction impeeding through the left border is distracting. When we go further in from the left I feel a lot of space in the image is used on uninteresting trees and a half hidden roof. So, a lot of uninteresting area there. Personally I think I would have tried to make a photo in portrait orientation instead and focus more on the building. The light on the building is pretty good, but the overall image quality should be a little better IMO for an FP. --Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean something like that File:Kudrinskaya Square Building in Moscow.jpg? --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please add geodata (including the header parameter). --Kjetil_r 23:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really would love to see more Featured Pictures of Moscow, but this one sadly has a problem with sharpness on the main subject, the building. -- JovanCormac (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I think, sharpness is quite good for such shot...--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On both this nomination and the one below: You are allowed to vote for your own nomination (see the other nominations). -- JovanCormac (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other variants according Slaungers advice.--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With the given photo, left I would crop just right of the brown building, right crop just a little further right than 2nd variant to include the full tree-top. Keep the reflection, and with a chance of another photo on location consider to include more of the reflection in the lake. Either use portrait, or take a few photos to stitch later. -- Klaus with K (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunatelly, it's rather difficult to take full reflection - lake is not so huge. Wolld you please crop starting image and show the best combination, you think?--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now looking at the images: left crop just so slightly tighter than image 2, right crop as on image 3. -- Klaus with K (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I just tried to keep standart sizes (9x13, 10x15, 13x18, 20x25). Is it important or not? --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      In my opinion, standard sizes (or standard aspect ratios like 4:3 or 3:2) are not important. They may be convenient, sometimes, but I would choose the crop which makes the image look best. -- Klaus with K (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coke and beggar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2009 at 02:08:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, upploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An old coca cola slogan from 1939 "Coca-Cola goes along" -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - correlation is not the same as causation. Downtowngal (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, you are right.... but why oppose? isn´t the picture at hand the object of the evaluation? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - He likes Coca-cola (surely he could have bought a local Mexican drink). Does that mean he is enabling his own poverty? Possibly, but the composition does not convince me that that is true. Maybe someone gave him the bottle. Do you see what I mean? The idea of causation is there, but the composition just presents correlation. Downtowngal (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How do you know he is mexican? in mexico we receive tourists from all over the world... could be a camouflaged foreigner... but the point is the image? why the discourse? is it a featurable picture? If not, why not? critique on photographic/encyclopedic grounds, not philosophical! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - ok, Tomas, I'll say it more plainly. The idea is there, but the composition isn't strong enough. Downtowngal (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now, that´s language I can understand, I am just a humble pipe salesman, but maybe some day I will learn about composition, photography... ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Don't see the point of the discussion. Of course Coca-Cola didn't cause his poverty. And of course this is a great picture, engaging and interesting. -- JovanCormac (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice colours and quality but the tilt is disturbing (looks like he is to slide off to the right) and the picture does nothing special for me—just a bloke and a coke - Peripitus (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The colors don't seem to integrate well to my eye. The pose of the man was captured well, but I think the coke bottle detracts from the picture. --JalalV (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Peripitus. —kallerna™ 10:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SantaCruz-CuevaManos-P2210651b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2009 at 18:00:08
SantaCruz-CuevaManos-P2210651b.jpg 

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F025952-0015, Bonn, Gesundheitsamt, Schutzimpfung.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 06:39:56
Oral polio vaccine 1967

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Oral polio vaccine added to sugar cubes, Germany 1967. Created by Jens Gathmann - uploaded by BArchBot courtesy of German Federal Archive image grant - nominated by InfantGorilla
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I was delighted when I saw this image: it is a very powerful piece of documentary history of the 1960s: contemporary with a mass worldwide campaign with a live oral vaccine that is no longer used in developed countries. The narrow depth of field and the composition drew my eye naturally to the action. It is only 0.4 megapixels, which seems to me appropriate given the limited detail communicated, and what appear to be artefacts (small white blotches) introduced by developing or storage. I think the resolution and defects are mitigated by the historical value. -- InfantGorilla (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the resolution is below 2MP. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image resolution is far too small for FP. However, as it is a photo of historical significance, why don't you nominate it for Valued Images? --JalalV (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, will do. Meanwhile, I suggest that using the 'FPX' template to guillotine discussion of 'strong mitigating reasons' for featuring low resolution images (to quote the nomination instructions) will create a bias against historic photography in Picture of the Day. --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seconded. Should I mention pictures from the Bundesarchiv cannot meet the requirements because they are not free, and will never be until falling within Public Domain? →Diti the penguin — 17:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • re: Diti Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany License is free --InfantGorilla (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Cynthia cardui (by) (6).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 09:27:25
Cynthia cardui 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Pieris brassicae (by).jpg, featured[edit]

Pieris brassicae 

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spider web in Fiscalina Valley.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 12:05:04
A spidere web in Fiscalina Valley, in Sexten Dolomites, South Tyrol, Italy

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llorenzi - uploaded by Llorenzi - nominated by Llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can find no good reason why this picture should be without color. Furthermore, it is lacking in sharpness. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can give you one if you want. If you make a near-perfect photo (in terms of composition, lightning, etc.) but the colors distract or suck, throwing the colors away can make a picture look stunning. →Diti the penguin — 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - beautiful in small size, but not sharp enough or unusual enough to be FP. Downtowngal (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Banksia formosa - open follicles.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 01:54:05
Great image of "an old fruiting head of Banksia formosa, with open follicles" 


result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.

File:Gent-Sint-Baafskathedraal vom Belfried aus gesehen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 22:49:34
Sint-Baafskathedraal (Saint Bavo Cathedral) in Ghent (Belgium) as seen from the top op the opposing bell tower

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mylius - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Mylius -- Mylius (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mylius (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - remarkable view! Downtowngal (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please add a heading to your geolocation. Adds value. --Slaunger (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose Excellent detail level, DOF and overall image quality, but the light on this overcast day does not induce significant readings on my wow-meter. Disregarding the climb up the bell tower it should be possible to make this shot at some other time where the light is better. --Slaunger (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In Belgium – like in England – most days are overcast like this (often even worse than here), therefore getting an image with a totally blue sky is almost impossible (and IMHO less authentic) unless you live there. --Mylius (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It does not have to be a "blue sky" photo. But I guess, that in Belgium (just like in Denmark, where I live) you also have "cloudy" days, where, if you wait for the right moment, you get better light. I think it is also a matter of the time of day. It can be see from the shadow that the facade is in shadow at this particular time of day. One out of 2300 files on Commons gets featured, so I think it is fair enough to expect that the timing in taking the image is just right. --Slaunger (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The detail level is great, but I don't particularly like the perspective and IMO the random people on the square make it look like a snapshot. -- JovanCormac 16:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is a snapshot - shooting with a tripod is impossible as the bell tower's battlement is too narrorw to get one up there. --Mylius (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great detail --ianaré (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good image, but qaulity and composition are common level. Background of city... Why for FP? --Karel (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What on earth is with the background of the city? Man, what has this place come to... skip the nomination, I won't waste my time here any longer and leave it to the elite (or those who know the right people to get their pictures featured). Cheers --Mylius (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kachugasylhetensis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 16:05:13
A photo of the endangered Kachuga sylhetensis from Pakke Tiger Reserve, Northeast India. 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Submarines scrap filtered.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 16:10:44
Nuclear submarines being scrapped

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Calvin Larsen (filtered by JovanCormac) - uploaded by US-mil - retouched & nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Four nuclear submarines being scrapped. After filtering the terrible noise the picture quality is quite good, and the slight sharpness problems are IMO more than made up for by the cool composition, the high educational value and of course the sensitive nature of the vessels on display - this particular scrapyard is certainly not one where you can just go to and take a few snapshots at your leisure. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Two+two=4 (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which submarines are these? 75.41.110.200 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't able to find any information about that. Sadly, the link provided as the original source of the photo is dead. -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Suggestions and comments Maybe, a perspective correction and rotation to make the submarines axes be aligned with up-down directipon such that it would appear as if the camera was centered right above the subs? And following that perhaps a light crop on the sides to eliminate some of those uninteresting roof of buildings? Not too convinced about the photo in its present state. Highly interesting subject though. --Slaunger (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Based on data from this article, I've worked out that the 4 submarines most likely being scrapped on the date that this picture was taken (31/07/1993) were the Threasher Class ex-Permit (SSN-594) and ex-Pollack (SSN-603) as well as the Skipjack Class ex-Scamp (SSN-588) and the unique sub, ex-Halibut (SSN-587). There's no way of knowing which is which, but hopefully we can confirm that the above names are correct. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! I tried to find it myself but didn't succeed. Please add the information to the image description. -- JovanCormac 09:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think V2 is better. The aspect ratio of V1 is a little extreme. I can't decide whether I like V2 or the original better, though. The tilted perspective adds a dynamical element to the picture IMO. -- JovanCormac 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ara ararauna Luc Viatour.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 19:45:43
Ara ararauna 

result: 14 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calvi-Feux 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 18:45:25
Calvi-Feux 2009.jpg 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mt-St-Greg-RueEcureuils-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 18:28:10
Mont-Saint-Grégoire 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erloeserkirche Bad Homburg 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 18:09:32
The Church of the Redeemer in Bad Homburg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Object: The Church of the Redeemer in Bad Homburg. Created by Wo st 01 - uploaded by Wo st 01 - nominated by Wo st 01 -- Wo st 01 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wo st 01 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is this a tone-mapped HDRI? The colours look very unnatural to me. Also perspective correction is needed, too noisy, partly blurry, significant chromatic aberration and there's no real "wow" for me. -- H005 (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Pic is right out of a Canon Ixus 40, no alterations. It was a very sunny evening, just after a rainshower and the sun was right behind. I was surprised myself by the brightness of the colours. -- Wo st 01 (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. That's really strange. Anyway, you'll have a hard time to get a picture promoted to FP that comes out of such a small camera. Requirements are usually rather tough here, sorry. -- H005 (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a first attempt, so I did not really expect to fly. If you find anything in here, feedback is welcome. -- Wo st 01 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joshua Tree - Uncle Willie's Health Food Store.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 03:41:54
Joshua Tree National Park: Ruins of Uncle Willie's Health Food Store in Barker Dam Area. 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Squirrelmonkfamily1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 08:34:22
A family of Bolivian Squirrel Monkeys (Saimiri boliviensis)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by julielangford - uploaded by julielangford - nominated by julielangford -- Julielangford (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Julielangford (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I recommend geolocating it on the file page. --Slaunger (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And also please mention the zoo by name where it was taken in the file page description. It is rather important to know if such photos are zoo shots or not. --Slaunger (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality - the face of the monkey on the left.--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Two+two=4, also quite noisy. -- JovanCormac (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question The quality seems great, apart from that left monkey's face. What happened? Why just there? Maedin\talk 18:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think i have uploaded the wrong file by the looks of it. This is one that I have edited. I will swap it over for the right file now. --Julielangford (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely! Yann (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it is very good photo, and had it been from the wild in its natural environment, I would have supported. The slight quality problems on the face of one monkey (I did not see any significant imprevement in the new revision of the image) and the cutoff tail makes me conclude that it is not quite on par with what I expect from a featured picture. --Slaunger (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Slaunger. —kallerna™ 15:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise and blur are too bad to ignore. -- JovanCormac 17:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Voted twice by accident. -- JovanCormac 06:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, Ok, I got you the first time, you oppose, that's fine, but could you possibly keep it to the once please. Julielangford (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any user can vote once, if they like. If what you are really saying is that you got the point and would like to withdraw your nomination you can add 

{{withdraw|~~~~}}

to this nomination page - and the reviews will stop. --Slaunger (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user ment that JovanCormac opposed the image 2 times.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry about that, just realized it ;-) I scratched out the second one. Apologies in particular to the nominator, I meant no disrespect. -- JovanCormac 06:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And sorry for overlooking that one user had indeed voted twice - I misunderstood your comment, Julie. --Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The quality on the left monkey isn't so good, but I think the right monkey and her baby more than make up for that. Maedin\talk 07:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - right side fine, left side just not interesting enough Downtowngal (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villa Emo Fanzolo giardino retro 2009-07-18 f01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 14:30:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Marcok (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The rear garden of the Villa Emo in Fanzolo di Vedelago, Treviso, Italy. The villa was designed by Andrea Palladio in 1559 and it is part of the World Heritage Site "City of Vicenza and the Palladian Villas of the Veneto".
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Marcok (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Boring composition (symetry, bushes on the foreground). →Diti the penguin — 15:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing is sharp.--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, nothing special here. -- JovanCormac (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I quite like it, The symmetry is quite extraordinary. Great use of thirds too. I think a slight crop on the bottom would benefit it though, to remove that distracting dark area, which draws the eye straight away. Julielangford (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - not sharp enough. I love the image though, reminds me of a Tarot card! Downtowngal (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aida poster colors fixed.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 22:51:00
Aida

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by the Otis Lithograph Co. - uploaded by Adam Cuerden/Kaldari - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! -- JovanCormac (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  18:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks like it promised to be a lavish production. Maedin\talk 12:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aida does kind of require some lavishness to pull off: There's a long instrumental triumphal march which inevitably falls flat in any lower-budget production, since it's long, and the only point to it, in the plot and the opera as a whole, is to show off Egypt's triumph with lavish celebration. You'd be wise to cut it - if it wasn't one of the best-known tunes in the opera. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 12:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- JMCC1 (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 12:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rebus from Rebus-magazine.jpg, featured[edit]

Rebus

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Large and complicated rebus from Russian "magic, spiritual and supernatural" magazine "Rebus" (1883). Scan by --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support with a few requests: The image is signed in the lower left and the lower right - can you copy that information into the author field? I would, but it'd probably be more accurate done by a native Cyrillic speaker. Also, I believe the correct permission is {{PD-RusEmpire}} Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Some monograms there, they're not easy even for native. =) --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - it's fascinating to see that rebuses were also popular in 19th cenury Russia. Can you also include in the description box the 'content' of the rebus? Downtowngal (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic! More of those please, if possible. -- JovanCormac (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting! Maedin\talk 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 12:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kochenmuehle.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 19:38:10
Kochenmühle

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Harke - nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXXtalk  19:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  19:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a good and clean photo of this building, but it is not outstanding. The technical quality is fairly good (may pass at COM:QIC), the composition is not particularly interesting, and the lightning is a little dull/flat. --Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sodium polyacrylate.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Challiyil Eswaramangalath Vipin - uploaded by Challiyan - nominated by Sfu (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sfu (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It is an eye-catching photograph showing in an intriguing way what is in a diaper. Good lightning and colors. The image quality is fairly good, but could certainly be better for such a static studio shot. There are a few things though, which bothers be about the image:
    1. The different water-swollen spheres have different colors. Why is that so? That is not explained on the image page.
    2. There is this ring separating the green spheres from multicolored ones. I find it distracting. What is it?
    3. The source link does not work for me as a logon on Yahoo is required.
--Slaunger (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A scale would be useful. Yann (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the blurry area between the green and the colorful balls. -- JovanCormac 16:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am affraid sodium polyacrylate is colorless, so the title is confusing. --Chrumps (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Latrobe White House cropa2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 09:33:21
White house floor plan

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Benjamin Henry Latrobe - restored and uploaded by Durova - nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Highly detailed historical (1807) floor plan of the White House. Masterfully restored. Featured on EN already. -- JovanCormac (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A high resolution scan showing some interesting details of early white house design. I've looked at the LOC original and it is clear to me that a great effort has gone into restoring it, which is highly appreciated. I acknowledge that the floor plan is historically interesting. As I understand the roosm are not used in that exact way today. The technical quality is very good. The reason why I do not support is that the floor plan itself does not catch my eye in any way. There are rooms with some dimensions and some annotations telling about the intended purpose of each room. And...? Maybe it is just because I am not American that I cannot fully appreciate this floor plan, or maybe I am just ignorant... --Slaunger (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support evolution of landmark buildings, highly encyclopaedic and well done. GerardM (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know nothing is stated against it in the rules, but I would say that personally I would have abstained from supporting my own creation, when another user had nominated, as it seems like having two "free" supports. I will open a thread about it at the talk page to open a discussion about it. --Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The last time someone nominated one of my restorations without notifying me, I did abstain. And people criticized me for not supporting it. It failed by a hair. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Durova (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I was not aware of that. I only personally dislike to sup own creations, when nominated by others. I see on the FPC talk page that I am fairly alone with that point of view, and I have accepted that this practise is OK, and that it is the will of the community. --Slaunger (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rama (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Muhammad (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DesertStormMap v2.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 10:02:08
Desert Storm

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Jeff Dahl - nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Very informative map illustrating the Desert Storm campaign. High quality SVG. It really doesn't get any better than this. Already featured on EN. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kudos to the creator! It makes a very interesting desktop, as well. I do have to ask though, why is it EN always seems to have so many great images featured before we do? A comment on the nomination habits of the FP crowd, perhaps? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, in turn Commons has a lot of beautiful photographs featured that EN does not. It is mainly in the field of non-photographic images that they are a little ahead. -- JovanCormac (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anonymous votes are not allowed. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is the SVG created such that the embedded text can easily be localized to other languages? --Slaunger (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just looked at it with Inkscape and the answer is no, the labels are paths, not text objects. -- JovanCormac (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Thanks for checking it. That is a pity as it would be much more useful if it were localizable. --Slaunger (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A good illustration with a very high detail level, which must have taken a long time to create. However, I do not fancy that the text is not localizable. Secondly, I think the illustration is simply so overloaded with details that it is tending towards "clutter". --Slaunger (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Considering the Gulf War was the largest conflict since the Vietnam War, and involved over 2 million combatants, 3000 aircraft, 6 carrier battlegoups and much more besides, it's perhaps unsurprising that the overview is, as you say, a little cluttered. I don't see this as a huge problem; the scope and scale of the conflict can only be properly grasped when viewed in full. As an overview it works, though it would be useful to have major battles explored in seperate maps, to serve as a complement to the larger map. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't feel that this is at all cluttered, it is full of information and great detail about an event. If I were to read a book with an illustration similar to this in it, this is exactly the amount of detail I would want to find. Very well illustrated and put together. Julielangford (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - wow! As Julielangford. Downtowngal (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 13:36:55
Sydney Opera House 

result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tagpfauenauge, Inachis io auf Astrantia major, Großer Sterndolde 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 20:30:40
Inachis io on Astrantia major 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bufo americanus PJC1.jpg, featured[edit]

Eastern American Toad

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas --Cephas (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd probably support this from the frog's expression alone. Though the excellent composition certainly helps as well. --Calibas (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Doesn't he look grumpy? :-) Maedin\talk 12:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To be perfectly honest, I find the background distracting. --JalalV (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the picture, but it could use a denoise and the removal of the piece of grass between the toad's eyes. -- JovanCormac 16:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is not anormal for an animal crawling in grass to have a piece of grass between the eyes, or anywhere else. It's not the toad fashion show! ;-) - I don't think it should be removed. --Cephas (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think he means the grass in the background if you look right above the middle of the eyes. I found that part of the background the most distracting part. --JalalV (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, but I don't master picture software well enough to do a good job for this. If somebody wants to do it... --Cephas (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's unnecessary to remove the piece of grass. I can't see the point in taking pictures in a natural environment if you then want to remove said natural environment. Why would you say, "what a great looking toad, but shame there is a teensy, tiny element of its natural habitat near its eye." Seriously? Maedin\talk 07:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great image as is --ianaré (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cow (Fleckvieh breed) Oeschinensee Slaunger 2009-07-07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 23:56:24
Fleckvieh cow in Switzerland

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A cow (Fleckvieh breed) near Oeschinen Lake in Switzerland at an altitude of 1575 m. Please note that Commons already have a (very good) FP of a Swiss cow (Swiss Braunvieh breed) in a quite similar pose by Dschwen taken at a significantly higher altitude of about 2520 m, and I totally respect if the reviewers here feel that the existing one is enough (and superior) to my nom.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Such great expression on the animal in this shot. She really looks very grumpy, and not at all impressed. Lovely shot. Julielangford (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Sadly, the snout exhibits blown whites. Could probably be retouched though. -- JovanCormac 17:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees-edit.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 00:04:29
Crowds line the Champs Elysees, 1944

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jack Downey, corrected and uploaded by Julielangford, nominated by Yann (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It was color corrected from last nomination. It is a great image of a historical event. Yann (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It was a great image to start off with. Great recording of our history. Julielangford (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp -- downright blurry in the corners, really sharp nowhere ; vignetting. Nothing special -- it's a trivial shot of passing mecanised grunts, composition and PoV are not breathtaking. No wow factor. Rama (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Such an important moment which links in with so many articles. Many in France view this moment with great relief still. 81.106.99.197 23:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Please login, anonymous votes will not be counted. Thank you. --ianaré (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Historically significant, but IMO this needs a restoration before it can be featured. -- JovanCormac 17:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, previous nomination (original version): here --Aqwis (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I will nominate a restored version. Yann (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Crypte.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 04:31:13
The royal crypt below Brussels

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Abigor - uploaded by Abigor - nominated by Abigor -- Huib talk 04:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Huib talk 04:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, excellent shot! The black & white and the slight tilt are perfect for the crypt's ambiance. --Calibas (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now this is a picture with atmosphere! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting image.--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you want me to do that? Its on both ends a dead end, it doesn't matter where I stand.. There will be stones cut off. Huib talk 15:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to be able to read the entire text on at least one of the gravestones maybe upper left. If it is impossible to take such an image I will change my vote for support.--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Its to bad in that case, this location (The Royal Belgium Crypt) isn't normally free to visit and I don't think I will get a second change like this, and the location is a 257.6 km drive, so its not close by to go back. Huib talk 17:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the balance and peace in the picture. --MGA73 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why it's desaturated? —kallerna™ 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a HDR almost ready, but that is with a complete different mood. Huib talk 10:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Matasg 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 18:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - great subject and composition, but not sharp enough Downtowngal (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose only because it's tilted, something that could be fixed. -- H005 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - fixed - Huib talk 04:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Yep, looks much better now! -- H005 (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, very nice. Silver Spoon (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phrynosoma hernandesi (Calibas).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 04:48:05
A Horny Toad 

result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerogelflower filtered.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 13:26:18
Aerogel and flower

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by (Unknown@NASA) - uploaded by Matt - retouched & nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A beautiful and educational picture illustrating the amazing insulating properties of aerogel. A previous nomination of the original file failed because the voters complained about image noise. So I filtered the picture and re-uploaded it, resulting in this version, which hardly exhibits any noise at all. -- JovanCormac (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes! →Diti the penguin — 15:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Two+two=4 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —kallerna™ 18:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very convincing illustration of the very low thermal conductance of this aerogel. --Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Much better than before, but it's a little grainy in spots on the petals and look at where the green meets the black. The edges could be a little cleaner. Did you use the original? My edit may have gave you something worse to start with. Rocket000 (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I used the current version, which I though was better because it already had some damage (scratches) removed which I don't have the skill to do. -- JovanCormac 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bank of Tanzania golden hour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 16:35:29
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not called the “golden hour” for nothing! →Diti the penguin — 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A beautiful, understated picture. -- JovanCormac 08:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - beautiful work at making important but ugly modern buildings worth looking at. I like the desaturation of the spit of land behind them too. Downtowngal (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically excellent, but the subject does not fascinate me in any way. -- H005 (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good image, but why nomination for FP? --Karel (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. These are the requirements for QI, which it meets, d'accord. But an FP is a QI with a "wow!" factor, and I'm completely missing that factor here. -- H005 (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See Downtowngal's comment above. -Muhammad (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "an FP is a QI with a "wow!" factor": From my experience, there is no consensus on that. Confusingly enough, while the Featured Pictures page states that FPs are "some of the finest pictures on Commons", it doesn't give an actual definition of what precisely makes a Featured Picture featured. While the so-called "wow-factor" is an oft-quoted criterion used internally by many voters, looking through the FP library (especially the non-photographic images) you will undoubtedly find many pictures totally lacking in "wow", yet having some particular quality that by itself justifies them being featured. In this case here, it could be as Downtowngal stated: The art of making an ugly building look beautiful. -- JovanCormac 10:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as H005. Personally, I do not fancy the GFDL-1.2 only license either, as this limits the images usefullness on Wikimedia projects. For instance it cannot be used on the German wikipedia. --Slaunger (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa cardui, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 20:14:38
Vanessa cardui on Buddleja davidii 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saturn during Equinox.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 20:30:07
Image of Saturn during equinox taken by Cassini.

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I added the original caption, it mentions that there should be 6 moons in the image, thats how many "spots" I see. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes I am pretty sure that it is a moon. Also thanks for adding the original caption When I uploaded it I tried to condense it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tongerloo abbey-Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 21:41:41
Panorama of the Tongerloo abbey in Westerlo, Belgium

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by JH-man - uploaded by JH-man - nominated by JH-man -- JH-man (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Just put a lot of work into this and wanted to see where it would end up. Be gentle 'cause it's just a lousy Powershot ;-) JH-man (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I realized the colors looked a little bland and needed a boost, so I produced a v2 that looks more pleasing(nobody voted yet so no impact).JH-man (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tongerloo abbey-Panorama-v2.jpg
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think you have done well. I am indifferent concerning which edit. It is an interesting building, and the quality is good. A Powershot is not bad at all, you can make very fine panos with such a camera, when you use several images as you have done. Out of curiosity. How much time have you spend stitching it manually in Photoshop? Ever considered using other software for this purpose such as Hugin? --Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest and support! Well, to give you an idea from what I started, here File:Tongerloo_abbey-Panorama-stitch_start.jpg is how it looked after lining up the segments. I spent more or less the entire evening. Most of the trouble was in the clouds. I had some 'in between' pictures also, from which I was able to extract a couple of complete clouds that fit in better, but that still left trouble with inconsistent shades in the sky that needed to be corrected. Then I also had to remake the final picture after I realized that I had forgotten to work on the edges of the parts than ran through the building itself and the grass field, lol. But anyway, I have fun with those things so it wasn't too bad. I didn't try panorama software because somehow I didn't expect that to reach the kind of quality (without further extensive editing) that I would be able to reach manually in Photoshop? Also because I didn't use a tripod. Took the pics freehand.... But maybe I should look into that software. JH-man (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never used a tripod for my panos on Commons, which all except one has been taken hand held with a compact camera (I used a stone as support for one pano). I have always used Hugin for stitching. Despite that, the two panos i have ever nominated has been promoted. I do not think I could achieve the same results by manual stitching. But it depends on the how well you master which tool of course. I would consider linking to the initial edit instead of showing it here, as it is distracting for other reviewers. --Slaunger (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the color-boosted version. I was amazed to read that this is manually stitched. The stitch is absolutely perfect. -- JovanCormac 17:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support color boosted. either. Hand stitched? Impressive. --JalalV (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - either version, but I prefer the original version - more in the spirit of an abbey. Nice job. Downtowngal (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Either version because they are both excellent Julielangford (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the original. Color boosted version is just oversaturated. Nice work. —kallerna™ 11:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support color-boosted version, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
original result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
version 1 result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tableau 31 Indians hunting the bison by Karl Bodmer.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 22:39:08
Indians hunting the bison 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peilican.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 09:32:55

Original, not featured[edit]

Pelican (Pelecanus rufescens)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Julielangford - uploaded by Julielangford - nominated by Julielangford -- Julielangford (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Julielangford (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The animal is good, but the background is too disturbing… :( →Diti the penguin — 10:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy.--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice composition, and colours. I like the background, but the image has lots of noise as pointed out by other reviewers. I have uploaded a noise reduced edit for your consideration. --Slaunger (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now nominated below as a separate edit. --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose orginal in favor of edit. --Slaunger (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Cool, and thanks Slaunger. What happens now, should we replace mine with your edit? Add yours here for consideration instead? I don't know how this part of it works here. I am working on a noise reduced version myself, but not sure how to do it Julielangford (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Usual practise is to let both of them "compete" if there are users supporting an alternative. If both versions end up fulfilling normal requitrements, the version with the largest number of supports wins. If you decide to upload a noise reduced version yourself, you can either upload it as a new version of your original, or under a new file name. I would recommend the latter solution as otherwise it is a mess to figure out which revision of an image with a given file name a reviewer was voted on. --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--ComputerHotline (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In refactoring the nomination page I assumed youur support goes to the original. Please move your vote if I have misinterpreted that. --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the info about the best way to upload my own noise reduced version. I have now created it and uploaded it, but how do I add it here? Should I just replace the original file name on this one, or add it under yours below as a new entry? I would like to add it here at some point, as I spent quite a long time over the edit, making sure that noise was reduced only on the background, to preserve the detail of the bird - so the feedback would be really useful. Julielangford (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that adding it as another edit to choose from below as you have done is the right way to do it. --Slaunger (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

noise reduced/sharpened edit, not featured[edit]

Pelican (Pelecanus rufescens)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I would not mind this edit as an FP, but I think the creators own edit below is slightly better. Thus, I move my support to that edit. --Slaunger (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Slaunger's edit I actually think the water in the background looks really cool. -- JovanCormac 05:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Julie's below is a little better yet. -- JovanCormac 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Slaunger's edit is definitely FP quality. I forsake it only for one that is even better. -- JovanCormac 15:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The above image is not Slaunger edit but even Slaunger edit still has some noise and a red line on the feather.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OOps. It is now the correct photo which is shown. Thanks for noticing. --Slaunger (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Regarding noise reduction, there is deliberately some noise left. You have to have some noise to keep the texture and a natural reproduction of surfaces in a photo. Whenever you apply a noise filter you also remove information, and I am normally reluctant to do so. However, when there is noise in a smooth surface as in the background of this image, noise reduction can normally be applied without loosing too much information. It could certainly have been done better though. One of the most evident ways it could be done better was by masking the background and only apply a (more agressive) filter there. However, the edititon of Noiseware I have is a standalone version, where masking cannot be done, so it is applied globally in this case. --Slaunger (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Slaunger's edit - as JovanCormac Downtowngal (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noise Reduced Version 2, featured[edit]

Pelican (Pelecanus rufescens)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Julielangford (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Masked out main subject to preserve detail then applied noise reduction on mainly blue channel of the background, but also a small amount overall to the water. Julielangford (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's getting a little confusing now... 3 versions to vote on! I have examined both noise edits carefully, and think that Julie's is indeed better. So I propose we merge those edits into one candidate, and give people the choice between original and Julie's edit. -- JovanCormac 12:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It happens quite often that there are several versions to choose from at FPC and I do not think it is particularly confusing. I have of course the option of withdrawing my edit (which I may indeed do, haven't decided yet), but it is really up to the nominator of an edit to withdraw it. If you find Julies edit is better you should just support it and consider changing the vote for my edit to neutral or oppose depending on how you feel about it. --Slaunger (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree in priciple, but my fear is that this beautiful picture might not get promoted at all if the votes are "split in three". -- JovanCormac 15:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Moved my vote to Julie's as you suggested. -- JovanCormac 15:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes,you are somewhat correct that this is an inherent danger in the process. The problem is that there aren't many alternatives, unless you want even more confusion figuring out exactly which version which user has voted on. But maybe it would be worthwhile mentioning how other version of a nomination should be handled in the guidelines. For instance the nominator could actively post to the user talk pages of users who have voted or commented on the nomination page to ask them to also consider new edits. Also the nomination period could be reset whenever a new version is nominated to give more time. Only problem is that it ends up at the button of the page, where only a few users see it. The best strategy is of course to make sure the first version you nominate is optimal such that editing is not needed. Commons:Photography critiques can be used to get feedback prior to nomination as well, although that page is not as active as one could wish for...--Slaunger (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, the feature is not actually that important, but the feedback is. Because of the feedback on this image, I have managed to create a much finer photograph than the original, for which I am truly grateful to contributers. A feature of course, would be a fabulous bonus :) The critique given on my other photograph below has also been useful, and I am now considering a crop to remove the left monkey, so, this page is definitely proving valuable to me. Julielangford (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agreed JovanCormac, yes, it's very confusing, and please accept my apologies for making it so. I find the feedback here so valuable though, and I like to act on it if it is within my capabilities, so I thought it worthwhile uploading the edit, for further critique. Julielangford (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think you need to apologize at all. This process is quite normal and you are doing exactly what a dedicated creator and image editor should do IMO at FPC; take criticism on board, and try to address it if you agree and fix it is within your capabilities. --Slaunger (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the background in our edits are equally good. However, the fact that you have used a mask makes the subject stand out as slightly more detailed and with a more natural texture as compared to my edit. Nice work. --Slaunger (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Julie's edit. It's a little more detailed on the beak than the other one. -- JovanCormac 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —kallerna™ 11:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. Yann (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Structure of the Universe.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 16:14:57
SHORT DESCRIPTION

    • Are we certain this is not copyrighted by E. Hallman or University of Boulder or ESA? 75.41.110.200 16:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per JovanCormac. The stitching together ruins its quality. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Those lines are not the result of a stitch but as far as I understand meant to illustrate axes. The image shown a cube of space and its internal structure. I should not be seen as three sides of a cube but a half-transparent cob-web like structure illustrating how dark matter is distributed in a cube of space. Whether this is done elegantly or not is an entirely different matter (personally I think cause more confusion than clarification).
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golden-Marmot.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 19:35:54
Golden Marmot

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the photo is overexposed, not sharp and has overall bad image quality. --Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Despite my comment above, I still think it is an interesting photo in the animals natural environment. We only have a few quite low quality images of this species, and new ones are welcome, so do not be discouraged. --Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cattedrale Loreto square panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 20:00:38
Loreto Cathedral square , Italia (panorama)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Paolo Benvenuto - uploaded by Paolo Benvenuto - nominated by Paolo Benvenuto -- DonPaolo (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- DonPaolo (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please add some information on how the stitch has been made - how many photos, software, further processing. Also please add a geolocation. It adds value to the file description page. --Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the light is not good and something strange next to the boy and elderly lady.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Two+two=4--Claus (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Two+two=4 (the "strange thing" is probably a stitching error). -- JovanCormac 05:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, needs exposure correction and more care with the stitching. (I'm willing to give it a try myself, if you can provide the original photos.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bromine_vial_in_acrylic_cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 20:47:30
the chimical element bromine secure sealed in a acrylic cube

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not very sharp, but printed the quality is good nevertheless. →Diti the penguin — 09:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality-wise, this cannot compete with the silver photo above. But I am also a little concerned about EV: This cube is an object created as a way to display bromine in the physical world (i.e. a "hands-on" object). I'm not sure that a photo of such an object is adequate to illustrate the element. It might illustrate "acrylic cube", but for that the picture IMO is not crisp enough. -- JovanCormac 10:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Alchemist-hp: Btw I think your project to upload a pretty picture for every element is a great idea. Hopefully, we will soon have photos like your silver and tungsten ones for all elements. -- JovanCormac 10:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    not tungsten. It is titanium ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you're right. Got it wrong. -- JovanCormac 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is simple: bromine is a dangerous and toxic element. If you like to show it to other peoples then you must have a glas vial. Only a glas vial (=ampoule) is a fragile item. It is important to seal it. The best method is to embed it in acrylic. It is very dificult to take from an unvisible item a picture. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • please look also at the german discussion side.
      • I did, and now I know about the problems of handling bromine which makes taking an "open" shot of it difficult. But I still think a shot like this with less "packaging" would be better, and I agree with others on the discussion page that the scale is irrelevant for a liquid. -- JovanCormac 18:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • yes the scale is irrelevat only for a liquid, but not for an acrylic cube with a vial including a liquid ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - assuming that the ampoule is orange so that it is visible inside the cube, what color is the bromine? It appears black but maybe it is a different color. Please state its color in the description. Downtowngal (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bromine is a dark brown liquid (up to black if the thickness is large). The bromine vapour is orange-brown. You see both. Please look also for the properties at the linked image describtions. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —kallerna™ 10:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question When you say glass vile, and later, the vapour is Orange brown, which is what we see. What colour is the glass of the vile. Is it coloured or clear? Julielangford (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The glas vial ( = glas ampoule) is absolutely clear and transparent. You see the bromine vapor above the liquid bromine. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well that is truly amazing. Definitely has my support. Julielangford (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question What is the scale on the right for? Has bromine size? --Chrumps (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • the scale is a size for the item: the acrylic cube and for the bromine vial. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, the size of the acrylic cube is absolutely unimportant here. Right? --Chrumps (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • only for the acrylic cube yes, but not for both. I set the scale discreetly on the right side for your imagination. Pozdrawiam serdecznie, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't agree. The scale could be helpful in illustrating a size of atoms, bacteria, galaxies etc. but not for metal spheres or acrylic cubes :) Herzliche Grüße, --Chrumps (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think for all the scientific objects it is better to have a scale for a size comparison. Still better then coins or other things ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silver crystal.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 21:12:32
a Silver crystac with visible dendritic structures

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, that's amazing. --Calibas (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks great, but would probably look even better with a totally white background - or a black one! -- JovanCormac 05:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info yes it is possible and I tested it all, but I decided me for a shadow background. It looks simply better. Silver is a white-mirroring metal and very difficult to take a photo. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thank you for clarifying. -- JovanCormac 10:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  14:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Downtowngal (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support could imho be even a bit better with f/8 --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've tried it too (also f/2.8, f/5.6, f/6.6, f/8, f/9, f/11, f/16, f/24) No better via focus stacking. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —kallerna™ 10:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It took me ages to decide :) But yes, I like it Julielangford (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Silver Spoon (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While these images of materials are very interesting for the information they show about the materials, this also has something extra in the composition of the photo. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:French Republican Guard Bastille Day 2007 n2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 23:53:31
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by me
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Claus (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Nice picture Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a strange purple halo around many of the white objects, notably the gloves. Could this be removed? -- JovanCormac 10:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose crop too tight (feet and horse missing)--Andreas 06 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't see the encyclopedic value. Downtowngal (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this link [8]?.--Claus (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Perhaps I should have said, it's not the best shot of the subject for illustrating an encyclopedia entry. It looks more like a snapshot. Downtowngal (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop, sorry. Otherwise good. —kallerna™ 10:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Btw, colour fringes are a common issue in high-contrast situations. I do not think it should prevent this picture to be nominated but I can try to remove it if the shot was taken in raw format. inisheer (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop, subject. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad, but for FP should be something better quality. --Karel (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Symp-rouge-sang-2 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Sympetrum sanguineum on my finger. 

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Leste-vert-4 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 08:52:12
Chalcolestes viridis 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Leste-vert-3 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 08:50:44
Chalcolestes viridis 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Leste-vert-2 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 08:48:45
Chalcolestes viridis 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capdepera - Torre de Canyamel 03 ies.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 18:05:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by (Frank Vincentz) Ies - nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXXtalk  18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality of the wood is OK, the quality of the iron is not. Nothing special.--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KSEA Tower Interior.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 20:41:21
SeaTac tower interior

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the interior shown in the image is severely underexposed and the composition is messy (point-and-shoot-like). --Slaunger (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - even when lightened and color-corrected it's much too noisy. Downtowngal (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bismut (synthetisch).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 16:56:12
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ra'ike - uploaded by Ra'ike - nominated by Ra'ike -- Ra'ike T C 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Please compare the following featured pictures File:Bi-crystal.jpg, File:Bismuth crystal macro.jpg and File:Bismuth-crystal.jpg
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ra'ike T C 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info you see a lot of artefacts around the crystal. Please try to eliminate it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I load a new version without artefacts. -- Ra'ike T C 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While the guidelines tell me to look at the picture only when voting (which might make it), I'm going to Ignore All Rules here and say we don't need four featured pictures of bismuth crystals. The subject is so narrow (makes dragonflies look universal) that this would really constitute overkill, unless of course this picture was clearly superior to all other currently featured ones. But for me, this is not the case, as I like at least File:Bi-crystal.jpg better. -- JovanCormac 06:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skomerisle.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 14:21:45
Skomer Island, Pembrokeshire, S.Wales, UK

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Julielangford - uploaded by Julielangford - nominated by Julielangford -- Julielangford (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Julielangford (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A view over part of Skomer Island. A haven for wild puffins, sheerwaters, seals and occasionally whales, in Pembrokeshire, South Wales, UK Julielangford (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd support it if it weren't for the wrong focus, which really is a pity for this otherwise great image. -- H005 (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comment, but I don't understand what you mean by wrong focus? Could you please explain so that I can learn from it. Thanks. Julielangford (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The weed in the foreground is more or less sharp, but everything behind that (the sea, the land, the clouds) are very blurry. -- H005 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with H005. And an aperture of f4 is not very suited for landscape photography, try a smaller aperture to get deeper focus. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for all the feedback, I can see exactly what you are all saying now, and have decided that I cannot edit this image to improve the points raised. Julielangford (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nominationJulielangford (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 14:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teklanika river valley panorama.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2009 at 13:30:53
Teklanika river valley

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Panorama of the Teklanika river valley, Denali National Park. all by -- ianaré (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The sky is a little blown out, but your stitching is remarkable and the detail is great. Julielangford (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info made a slight adjustmen to the sky to bring out details more (sky was overcast) --ianaré (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, dull light. --Aqwis (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tintero (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good image, but nothing extra for FP, no WOW. --Karel (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Aqwis. -- JovanCormac 13:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I suppose seeing it in person was much more impressive than what I was able to capture on camera ... --ianaré (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 14:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gas planet size comparisons.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2009 at 03:18:37
A comparison of the sizes of the Jovian planets.

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the resolution is below 2MP. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Vajotwo (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops didn't realise it was bellow 2 MP when I nominated it. anyway in that case I withdraw the nom. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Conservatory of Flowers in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 00:24:23
Conservatory of Flowers

There are a flower crocodile on the left hand side and a flower clock on the right hand side.--Two+two=4 (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very good quality, but IMO composition isn't enought. Too much going on. —kallerna™ 07:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per kallerna. Also, the white of the building is a little extreme. Great sharpness and picture quality, though. -- JovanCormac 13:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the same reasons, not to mention it's also tilted. But with some rework it'll make a good QI. -- H005 (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for reviews. H005 to what side the image is tilted? I nominated it to QI and I was told that "something went wrong with stitching: some parts of the image look tilted others not." Do you also believe that only "some parts of the image look tilted others not."? --Two+two=4 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that QI nomination. I couldn't tell exactly before what I disliked about the tilt, I just found it strange and disturbing, but now that I read this I realise that that other reviewer is completely right! It's tilted on the left, but not on the right. I propose you try applying a perspective correction on the left image and then restitching it with the right one. -- H005 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the different tilt you see is an illusion.It is impossible to stitch the images with a different tilt without very noticeable errors. It will be hard for me to redo it. I am not sure what should be corrected. Anyway, thank you for your inputs.--Two+two=4 (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting delete.svg --Two+two=4 (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 14:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skansen bridge 2009 3.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 18:17:40
Skansen Bridge 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chrysanthemum Stone1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 17:50:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, 270 millions years old, thats amazing. It even appears to have a water droplet on one of the percieved petals. I have never seen anything like this before, its very intriguing and makes me thirsty for more information. Julielangford (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question It feels very dark, especially around the edges of the white, but I am not sure exactly what I am looking at. Is the white part embedded in something darker or does it lie on top of something black ? /Daniel78 (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both the black and the white parts belong to the same stone. The matrix (the black part)is limestone. The crystals (the white part) are andalucite so two different minerals in the same stone. Everything is natural.--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy and unsharp. Sorry but for me: boring. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:High speed shower filtered.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 17:47:22
Shower

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by turydddu @ Flickr - retouched, uploaded & nominated by JovanCormac 17:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A high-speed photograph of a showerhead dispensing water. -- JovanCormac 17:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 17:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy in some areas and overall nothing special.--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unnecessary vignetting. →Diti the penguin — 10:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Vignetting, bit overprocessed. —kallerna™ 18:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For picture of a shower head I think it could be done better. This one is lacking in what has previously been mentioned. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose vignetting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite leave the launch pad.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 16:00:40


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by the Kennedy Space Flight Center Public Affairs Office (NASA) - uploaded by Originalwana - nominated by Originalwana (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An Atlas V-Centaur rocket launches from the Kennedy Space Centre, taking the LRO and LCROSS instruments to the moon.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose NASA images are usually much more interesting. I don't like the composition. Yann (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. Mary's Church and Pharmacy-Retouch2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 19:32:40
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Al Huntsman in July 1965 (LOC) - uploaded and nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXXtalk  19:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment CCW tilt fixed from last nomination.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --   ■ MMXXtalk  19:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Many dirt specks and scratches remaining, unexplained addition of sepia toning into a grayscaled original. Durova (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B/W version
St. Mary's Church and Pharmacy-Retouch1.jpg

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I removed the dots and scratches. About the unexplained sepia, I personally prefer this version but B/W version is also available.   ■ MMXXtalk  21:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately the edits on this version are undocumented. The unrestored version is resized/compressed to such an extent that it isn't feasible to examine for comparison. Thanks for removing unnatural sepia, though. Durova (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:California Sea Lions at Pier 39.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 19:57:54
Sea Lions at Pier 39

Pictogram voting delete.svg --Two+two=4 (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 14:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kea on rock while snowing.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 04:45:37
Kea in snow

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Alan Liefting - uploaded by Alan Liefting - nominated by Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A fine picture of this unusual parrot in its natural environment - snow :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cool photo, but sharpness leaves too much to be desired. -- JovanCormac 09:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree per Jovancormac about the sharpness, but such a good capture overall with a great DOF. I like it. Julielangford (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Image resolution is pretty good and judging at the 2mp requirement, sharpness is ok. --Muhammad (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak Oppose Almost there, but not sharp enough. Snow makes nice extra to this photo. —kallerna™ 18:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough. --Makele-90 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness, and dull colors. I don't like the snow here. Yann (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it might be possible to sharpen this image enough to pass --ianaré (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ste Chapelle Basse s.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 11:08:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Benh LIEU SONG - uploaded by Benh LIEU SONG - nominated by IP
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 74.63.93.220 11:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Anonymous votes not allowed. -- H005 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is good, but the picture appears awkwardly cut off at the bottom. -- JovanCormac 12:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose do not like the composition and out of focus left lower corner.--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great colours, I don't think that will become better if you added what is below the current crop. And this little blury spot doesn't really spoil the overall "wow!" -- H005 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pantheon wider centered.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 11:05:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ravedave - uploaded by Ravedave - nominated by IP
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 74.63.93.220 11:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, now I am confused, This is already a featured image! Julielangford (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's featured on the English Wikipedia, not on Commons. IMO, all the Wikipedias as well as Commons maintaining separate FP libraries (with significant overlaps) is one of the worst design mistakes of the entire system. I realize that Commons has special license requirements, but for the language editions of Wikipedia the separate lists are simply ridiculous ("Ahh, this is featured on English, Turkish, but not on German, so I could nominate it there..."). -- JovanCormac 11:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support By which I don't mean to say that I don't want this to be featured on Commons; I certainly do. -- JovanCormac 12:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the clarification, and explanation. I'm new to the commons, so get a tad deranged on times :) Julielangford (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made the same mistake myself more than once, when looking at other people's nominations and seeing only the brown box, thinking "what in the world is this person nominating that picture for?" -- JovanCormac 14:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful. --Calibas (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No details in anything. The sculptures and the frescos are blurry.--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Paris 16 (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversburnt parts, too small for panorama, not sharp enough. —kallerna™ 18:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose - lovely atmosphere, but people expect to be able to zoom in on a panorama, and this one is just too small. Downtowngal (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very nice - Silver Spoon (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW --Pudelek (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luxembourg (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurry and distorted. Maedin\talk 16:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wooo..! What's happening to FP? This panorama is about to get promoted while much better panoramas have been rejected for defaults a lot smaller than what is found here. The verticals lines are not even vertical, absolutly no details are visible, and the size is clearly substandard to other panoramas, especially when they are covering such a wide angle (both horizontal and vertical). --S23678 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Former steel mill in Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 09:38:12
HDR steelworks

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by extranoise - uploaded by Edward - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The use of HDR produces an interesting effect when combined with an abandoned steelworks in Germany.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overprocessed. the fact that this was done on purpose doesn't make the picture nice. --che 10:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Aqwis (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please give a reason for opposing. Yann (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose When I saw the thumbnail I thought "WOW!", but in full size the overprocessing is disturbing. -- JovanCormac 10:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The best HDR photos are those on which the process is controlled (manually merging two photos and carefully editing the details), not those made by a machine, giving an unnatural result. The best HDR pictures are the ones on which we don't notice it's HDR. →Diti the penguin — 10:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not a great fan of overdone HDR, but in the case of this image, I think it is warranted. The depth created by the processing makes it really interesting, as opposed to being just a dull one without it. And the perspective is excellent.Julielangford (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - as JovanCormac. Downtowngal (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol wtf vote.svg Overprocessed —kallerna™ 18:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Surrealistic and unnatural, yes, but nonetheless an intriguing effect. -- H005 (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Also as JovanCormac. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a matter of taste, I like it --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's beautiful. AlexAH (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 7 oppose,  neutral => not featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mandarin duck woodcut3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 06:45:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. ZooFari 21:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sympetrum vulgatum side crop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 14:18:14
Female sympetrum vulgatum 

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Version, not featured[edit]

Female sympetrum vulgatum Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is this one better? --Korall (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, the crop is much better on this one. Julielangford (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (both versions) distracting background --ianaré (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry to be picky, but it looks like the focus just missed. A sharp twig and a slightly out of focus insect, particularly noticeable around the top of the thorax. Maedin\talk 16:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees-edit2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 15:43:08
Crowds line the Champs Elysees, 1944

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jack Downey, corrected, restored and uploaded by Julielangford, nominated by Yann (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Restored following JovanCormac's comment. It is a great image of a historical event. Yann (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, Following JovanCormacs suggestions, I removed a total of 27 scratches that I found within the image [Great suggestions JovanCormac], reduced noise and adjusted brightness, contrast, highlights and shadows. But, this was still a wonderful image in its original form. Julielangford (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is definitely better, and a great picture indeed. All the major scratches are gone, and the colors are much more vibrant. I found a little issue, unrelated to the picture itself: This file, a version of the one nominated here, is featured on the Spanish Wikipedia. Personally I think that the one nominated here is superior, and this is just another example of the mess that results from separate Featured Picture libraries (see my comment below). -- JovanCormac 16:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work. Otourly (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Paris 16 (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Poor restoration and poor documentation: correcting "noise" in a pre-digital photograph? Look at the uneven tones in the sky, and the profusion of dirt and fibers which remain. Color balance remains deficient in blue, serious brightness variances persist. Leaning toward oppose despite the iconic nature of the original, due to poor execution of the attempted edits. Durova (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "Noise" can be a product of scanning, just as well as it is in digital photography. Unfortunately, I do not know whether this image was scanned, or photographed, to be created as a digital file, so can't comment much about how the noise was created. As for the restoration attempt, yes you are correct about there still being many dust particles still evident. I could go back and continue to remove the thousands of them that are left, but as I am not a photo restoration professional, with all the relevant equipment to do so, it would sadly, change the image into something it isn't, and IMO ruin the original character. Thanks for your comment. Julielangford (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tintero (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Two+two=4 (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luxembourg (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ParisCafeDiscussion.png, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 16:29:05
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirnu.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 09:55:03
Kirnu, a steel roller coaster in Linnanmäki.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 09:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —kallerna™ 09:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. -- JovanCormac 10:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautifully photographed. Crisp, clear and noise free. I would vote this based on the facial expression of the barefoot girl on the left alone. Excellent! Julielangford (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I had already considered nominating it for FP when I did the QI review, but didn't for a lack of time. -- H005 (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The feeling is there... Yann (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry to spoil the party... image is a little soft at 100%, there is really no sense of movement, too static when motion should be more evident. I see no encyclopedic value, and as a promotional picture the snap is not there for me... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried to do panning, but it didn't work because it moves to many directions, and the facial expressions would be lost. It has EV, it could be used in articles like Kirnu, Linnanmäki etc. —kallerna™ 07:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Tomascastelazo.--Claus (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Tomascastelazo.-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's interesting to see how after many "support"s, the first "oppose" is often followed by a string of others. This pattern can be observed in many nominations, another notable example being this one. -- JovanCormac 08:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems that you're new here on FPC. Many users don't write english very well, so joining an oppose vote is a established way here on Commons. Reg.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 09:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't criticizing the behavior, nor was I commenting on people joining an opposing vote by writing "per USER", which is obviously acceptable. I just find it interesting that a single oppose often triggers an avalance of similar ones, as if the shortcomings hadn't been present before and a bunch of users were just waiting for the first one to oppose so they could jump on the bandwagon. -- JovanCormac 10:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • After the ice is broken it goes the roman style - thumb up or down :-)   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 15:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough, snapshot with auto exposure.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Err? You oppose because it was shot using auto exposure? So what a machine does can't be good, only honorable manual work is worth being featured? A weird argument. Also I find this picture extremely sharp, except maybe for a few minor areas, but those are also acceptable. -- H005 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that setting a faster exposure time manually works better for taking such images. I do not think the people are sharp enough.--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that a manually forcing of a faster exposure time with same f-stop causes an underexposure. If then it's ISO because the f-stop value with the resulting DOF looks fine 2 me.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 16:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with others here and hope that lots of others do as well - because if an image caught using auto features of a camera are not any good, I may as well pack up and go home :) I am useless with my camera setting, although I am tyring to learn them, but for me, an image is about the image itself, not about the skills of the photographer. This image for instance, gives me white knuckles just by giving it a glance - I'm on the ride. Julielangford (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As others opponents. --Karel (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mission Santa Barbara HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 11:14:12
Mission Santa Barbara HDR

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by kevincole @ Flickr - modified, uploaded & nominated by JovanCormac 11:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An amazing picture from someone who truly knows how to do HDR. Almost unearthly in its beauty, which certainly suits the subject. -- JovanCormac 11:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 11:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, I love the HDR effect on this. Great depth and tonal range. Julielangford (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I just discovered that Howcheng had the same idea and uploaded the same photo (without color modifications) six days ago at File:Mission Santa Barbara chapel interior.jpg. I invite you to compare the two. -- JovanCormac 11:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the pointer JovanCormac. I realy like this one, but the vibrancy on the other one is magnificent. Absolutely gorgeous. Julielangford (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tamed the colors because of fear that if I nominated the original picture, the "Anti-Overprocessing" crowd (which I belong to) would vote it down. -- JovanCormac 11:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a fan of over processing either, especially HDR, but a HDR that is done well is a different story. Both versions of this are very well done, and although I would support this version over the two, I would not oppose the other one. Julielangford (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral – I agree – it is one of the few HDRs without the overprocessed and surreal look. One thing that immediately catches my eye is the missing perspective correction. Straight lines would make this picture so much better. So neutral to me. --Ernie (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took the liberty of creating a perspective corrected version for you to take a look at. I won't add it here though as I feel the JovanCormac version is brilliant and warrants a feature. File:MissionSantaBarbaraHDR-perspective-edit.jpg Julielangford (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I took the liberty of converting the text into a link for easier use. -- JovanCormac 16:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Julie, I think in general your version looks even better than the one I uploaded, as the altar room is more prominent. But the perspective is a little distorted (which is why I don't use the term "perspective correction" myself; usually it's quite the opposite) which becomes evident when you looks at the "overweight" altar figures. It's really hard to say which one is preferrable, guess the voters will tell us more. -- JovanCormac 16:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ahhh, you know, as I was typing it up, I knew correction wasn't the right term, but I couldn't think of the right term. Adjustment would have been better, had it have come to me at the time, as correction is quite wrong. Yours is a true [Correct]perspective, where as my edit is an illusion. Due to guidelines stipulated above, I really don't think the false perspective should be featured, so I oppose it :)Julielangford (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that's hardly your fault, with "perspective correction" being the standard term used by people who really mean "perspective falsification to make it look better". Commons:Image_guidelines uses the same misleading term, and I think that it should be modified there as well. Cheers to that :) -- JovanCormac 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this is just badly overprocessed, the unrealistic look does not fit the subject. JovanCormac, why do you oppose Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Former steel mill in Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord.jpg because of overprocessing but "fear the 'Anti-Overprocessing' crowd"?
    While that Duisburg picture has its own unique and intrguing style, this simply overprocessed HDR here is nothing but kitschy to a point where looking at it really hurts. -- H005 (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated in my comment above I do indeed consider myself a member of that "crowd". But somehow the overprocessing (which HDR invariably is) didn't disturb me in this picture as it did in the Duisburg one. I guess you could call the Duisburg picture modern art, but it is processed to a point where it really doesn't illustrate anything anymore, except High Dynamic Range Photography. I don't think this is the case here. -- JovanCormac 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Don't listen to the crowds, this is just great. Yann (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - JovanCormac's original nomination - I like the 'raised' altar - though the colors were toned down a little too much IMO. Downtowngal (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was going to nominate this at FPC, but I thought the pixelation in the pew in the lower right would disqualify it. howcheng {chat} 16:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose looks like the default settings of Photomatix. Very unnatural overprocessing. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing depth --Tintero (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same as H005. --Karel (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose —kallerna™ 07:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cool application of HDR! -- Simisa (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While I like the concept of HDR, this image looks too artificial to me. --JalalV (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good HDR image. Jacopo Werther (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Sorry, but this is two-mouse-click-Flickr-crap. Looks completely unnatural, has no educational use. --Dschwen (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A good HDR pic. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panoramica Piazza della Repubblica Roma.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 13:35:00
Panoramica notturna Piazza della Repubblica, Roma 

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Solenostomus paradoxus black.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 21:48:15
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calopteryx splendens 20050729 504.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 21:50:45
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poumatua2.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 21:53:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agassiz statue.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 21:56:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ArcticFoxSummer.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 21:58:17
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): The picture has bad focus, and the colors are off, too. -- JovanCormac 21:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- JovanCormac 21:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist okay thumbnail, but blurry/noisy fullsize. --JalalV (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist not a very good photo.--Avala (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist —kallerna™ 14:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Karel (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It's not always and only about quality IMO. This hold great EV, showing an arctic fox in mid moult. We dont have many of this species on here, and this is one of the better ones. Very valuable. Julielangford (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 6 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montinari Milano.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 21:59:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:A single white feather closeup.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 22:02:29
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Port wine.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 22:04:37
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CambridgeSunset.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 22:05:55
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep,0x neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pano-bayer-leverkusen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 12:56:43
Panorama of the Bayer main factories at the Rhine in Leverkusen, Germany

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by S[1] - uploaded by S[1] - nominated by S[1] 12:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S[1] 12:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really good panorama. -- Ra'ike T C 17:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the composition could be better, too much water. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • “Too much water”? For me, it's as if you had said “too much bricks” in a castle panorama! :D →Diti the penguin — 21:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you know what I mean :), see Mmmx's comment. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, uninteresting foreground. Try a higher viewpoint next time. --Aqwis (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, picture is slightly tilted to the right -- Simisa (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very interesting panorama, but CW tilt should be fixed and I think a tighter crop from the bottom would work better also maybe crop out the chimney in the right to improve the composition.   ■ MMXXtalk  16:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, featured[edit]

Well, here is a cropped version with a slightly corrected perspective:

Pano-bayer-leverkusen.jpg

Is this version better than the previous? --S[1] 23:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I forgot that on Commons it's allowed to support own works ;) therefore Symbol support vote.svg Support this version, too --S[1] 20:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Better, but there is some issue on the right hand side with the tall building (very unsharp). /Daniel78 (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can now support the pic but would prefer if the small stiching error Daniel78 is mentioning could also be removed. -- Simisa (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I presume you mean the building being under construction — now I made a new version where this one is little bit sharper. --S[1] 16:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think both versions have their pros and cons, can't say I like on more than the other. But when you edited it, why did you cut off a few lines of pixels from the sky? I'd rather see more sky and less water. -- H005 (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Btw, I used to see this panorama almost daily for years ... sigh! ;-)[reply]
    • Well, I believe that I cut off very few from the sky, that was just my intention to make the distances between the main composition and the edges a bit more equal; of course I cannot guarantee that everyone will find it optimal, presumably It's more a matter of tastes (e.g. I still do not agree that the first version contains „too much water“, but other people do, as you see). --S[1] 16:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, IMHO no wow. —kallerna™ 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The scene has no personality (nothing special to see), nor it's presented in an exceptional way. --S23678 (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, after much thinking I agree with Kallerna and S23678. --Aqwis (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Speyer Dom BW 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 13:04:14
Rose window at Speyer cathedral

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sadly, the wire mesh protecting the window completely spoils the shot. -- JovanCormac 13:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree per JovanCormac. Beautifully detailed photograph, but unfortunate about the protective mesh. Even when viewed small, it creates white vertical lines which distract. Julielangford (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Here's a first draft of a modified version with most of the mesh removed. Clearly it still needs significant manual editing to look good, but at least it shows that it's technically possible to get rid of the mesh. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, not featured[edit]

OK, I spent some time cleaning my version up. Here it is now:
Rose window at Speyer cathedral, mesh removed
—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ilmari Karonen's edit. That's a mighty fine editing job. Julielangford (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wow, what a great work removing the grid! And many thanks for also describing so detailed how you've done it, that is most helpful!
    Unfortunately I still think the quality is not good enough for FP, sadly - it simply isn't crisp enough IMHO. -- H005 (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is certainly one of the most impressive edits I've seen. I didn't think it was possible to remove such a large object from a photo. But sadly, the image revealed beneath the grid is less impressive (see comment by H005). -- JovanCormac 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Thanks for the comments, both of you. I've uploaded a new version that has been somewhat sharpened, but I agree that it could still be improved. (And, even if improved, might still not be good enough — such things happen, and there's only so much one can do after the fact.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flambe.jpg, not featured[edit]

Flambé (Iphiclides podalirius) 

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steve irwin at Australia zoo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 17:51:53
Steve Irwin

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by richardgiles @ Flickr - uploaded by Cyde - nominated by JovanCormac 17:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I randomly came across that picture, and realized it is quite excellent, both in quality and composition. It evokes the feeling of being there to watch the show, on a hot summer day. -- JovanCormac 17:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 17:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love how the croc is still up on two hind legs at the point of shutter release, and the fact that the subject is partly Steve Irwin, who is sadly no longer with us, makes this a very valuable image indeed. Great quality, crisp and clear. Julielangford (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - excellent. Downtowngal (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Main subjects are a bit small, and Steve's face is hidden. Has snapshot-ish feel to it. --ianaré (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per ianaré.--Claus (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose snapshot --Two+two=4 (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the term "snapshot" applies here, unless you also call this a snapshot. In a sense it is of course, since it's a photo taken at a precise moment (the footballer stretching for the ball) and had it been taken a second later the picture wouldn't have been half as good. The same applies here. I guess you could call it an action photo, but it is certainly not the kind of snapshot people usually take on the beach, and IMO not only interesting, but also composed quite well (the crowd in the background taking pictures serves as a nice backdrop). -- JovanCormac 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too bad he was facing away from the camera. Durova (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Curnen (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC) A portrait of a person does not necessarily show the face, if it represents the person's typical attributes. Here in Germany Irwin well known for his work with crocodiles, but not for his other projects. (In fact I needed to read the article to get to know about the other stuff he did). Furthermore I would neither call the composition random nor dislike the the people as backdrop. Far from it ![reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per Ianaré and Durova. Silver Spoon (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this is not a portrait but an image of Steve Irwin in action so I don't think that we should dismiss this image based on the fact that you can't see his face when it doesn't play any role here.--Avala (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As a tribute --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop, face is hidden, bad background. —kallerna™ 07:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As a picture of any individual in a zoo doing a demostration or interaction with crocs, this picture is fine, for it includes many elements within a context. On top of that, the profile is recognizable as Irwin´s, which is in fact much more challenging and in effect making a portrait of him, even though the face is not shown, but his essence is. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I didn't say that this image isn't fine, it just isn't enough for FP. —kallerna™ 14:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Avala and Tomascastelazo. --Lošmi (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! -- Ukuthenga (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Luxembourg (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please state a reason for your vote? -- JovanCormac 18:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kew Gardens Palm House, London - July 2009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 18:59:58
A view across the gardens to the Palm House in Kew Gardens

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by (DAVID ILIFF) Diliff - nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXXtalk  18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful image, already nominated at en wiki, I wonder why it is not nominated here yet.   ■ MMXXtalk  18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great quality. -- JovanCormac 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree. -- H005 (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - oversaturated green dominates the image. Downtowngal (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great quality --ianaré (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Oversaturated —kallerna™ 06:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wouldn't call that oversaturated - the colours look about right for a summer's day in the UK. Time3000 (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent outlook. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A little oversaturated on the grassy areas, but I think reducing the saturation would take away the vibrancy of the sky. Julielangford (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Maybe its over-saturated, but most Wikipedia Readers won't have calibrated their screen anyway. --Curnen (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's oversaturated at all. Certainly looks about right to me. Remember these are very well tended-to gardens. The grass is about as green as grass gets. Diliff (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tintero (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite nice.--Two+two=4 (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yiyi (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ciudad de las ciencias noche.JPG, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2009 at 12:03:03
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 4 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Maedin\talk 13:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cross-river-gorilla.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2009 at 02:21:20
Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Julielangford - uploaded by Julielangford - nominated by Julielangford -- Julielangford (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Normally I wouldn't consider trying to promote an image with as low a quality as this, but this is one special lady and she deserves it. Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli). Listed as one of the most endangered primates on the planet, with approximately only 300 left in the wild and just one in captivity. Her name is Nyango, and she resides at Limbe Wildlife Centre, Limbe, Cameroon. Her right eye was damaged while young [probably during her capture by hunters]. I built a special relationship with this very unique lady during my visit to Limbe, but unfortunately, my camera was playing up for the whole visit, and sadly, this is the best shot I got of her. I hope to return one day, with a fully working camera, just to get another image of this fantastic creature. She is a rare gem indeed, and we do not have an image of this species within the commons as of yet. Julielangford (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Julielangford (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request If there is anyone out there who can improve on this image, please do so. I would be most grateful for your contribution to this species. Julielangford (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As blurry as it is sharpening isn't going to do much. To get a decent picture it would have to be reduced to at least 1000px wide. I could do that if you want, what are you using the picture for? --Calibas (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I,m not actually using it for anything. I just want the world to see her and to share her :) Julielangford (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this picture.--Claus (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very unsharp--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comment. Yes, I agree, it is not sharp, but the intent here is the promotion of the actual subject, in line with the guideline above that a hard subject, low quality image is more valuable than an easy subject, high quality one. This is the only Cross River Gorilla in captivity in the world [she is 4000 miles away from me], and the small wild population are in an excluded, protected area, which makes photographing one, extremely difficult. The quality is not great I agree, but the subject matter is highly valuable Julielangford (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry.--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • no need to be sorry :) You are quite corect about the sharpness. I just thought I would explain why it's here. Julielangford (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose face not in focus --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd suggest the Valuable images section then. In my opinion it doesn't met the criteria for a featured picture.--Curnen (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose seems blurry --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altare della patria.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 19:01:51
Altare della patria (Vittoriano), Roma 

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colosseo 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 18:29:45
Colosseo, Roma 

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spider 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 23:10:08
'Orribly ugly garden spider


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Robert of Ramsor - uploaded by Robert of Ramsor - nominated by Robert of Ramsor I don't expect this to make it to FP. But it would be useful if someone could do what I failed to do by browsing the existing spiders on Wiki, and identify the species / variety etc. (The closest was named "cross spider" - I think this one was quite calm.) This ugly beast was hanging this way up (head downwards) with a fly a few inches away on the web. Apologies to anyone who does not like the wall, but I did not have time to demolish it. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy. —kallerna™ 09:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured[edit]

slightly different angle and aperture changed to blurr background

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Slightly different angle of view and aperture just in case anyone wants to see a variant. What I find interesting is seeing the way the spider holds the web by the tips of its legs. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support formality, as nominator -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy. —kallerna™ 09:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:St-Dymphna church.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 20:53:50
St-Dymphna church in Geel, Belgium - 6x3 combo picture

There are some errors and some leftovers from clone stamp.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but nothing breathtaking. Ok quality, Warning Symbol – Chromatic Aberration.svg chromatic aberration. —kallerna™ 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Messy composition (or rather none at all). Unclear subject, is this the best angle you can get of this church? Lacks foreground. Trees on the left sticking unmotivated into the frame. Other trees occlude much of the church. --Dschwen (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is not so bad (one can hardly remove the trees for a while, in order to have a better picture...). But the late afternoon is not a good time for taking a picture from that location, as the sun moved already too far westward. Too much of the building stays in the shadow. -- MJJR (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asiatic-lion.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 13:07:42
Asiatic Lion 

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 13:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:spectacled-langur.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 12:09:10
Spectacled Langur

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Julielangford - uploaded by Julielangford - nominated by Julielangford -- Julielangford (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Julielangford (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose crop --Luxembourg (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Great expression and fine crop but zoo environment spoils it --Muhammad (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I know. Unfortunately though, I can't get over to the Asian forest just yet :) I,m working on it though. Julielangford (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I might be wrong, but this immage looks heavily denoised. --Ernie (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure who I am answering, but I have run a denoise filter over it - but it is very slight, not a large amount at all. Only on the background. Julielangford (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The one forgetting the signature all the time is usually me.
      If you shot a JPEG it might be your camera's fault. The EXIF data says "Custom image processing: Normal process" and by default most Canon DSLRs tend to denoise the image too much at higher ISOs. You might want to change that setting, if so. --Ernie (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the tips. My camera settings and I don't always see eye to eye, I find the damn things real hard to find my way around, so most of the time, set it up to auto. Despite there being plenty of daylight for this shot [and others took on the day. overhangs over glass windows meant the flash would have gone off, so I had to set it to night :) Told you, Im hopeless with the settings :) I forgot my tripod too, which didn't help at all. Julielangford (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image. Zoo background is disappointing, but I think the subject's expression makes up for that. Maedin\talk 14:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome expression on the primate's face. A great portrait. One of the best primate pictures on Commons. -- JovanCormac 17:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background spoils it IMO. —kallerna™ 08:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the background is a shame. I tried to get as shallow DOF as I could to try and eliminate it, but alas, it's still visible. I am going to remove the background for my own uses soon. Julielangford (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. A combination of it being a visible Zoo shot, and the poor attempt at masking the blown highlights on the upper lip and possibly eye. --Dschwen (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have now uploaded a version with the zoo fencing removed if anyone is interested in taking a look. File:Spectacled-langur-bg.jpg Julielangford (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any comments in regard to the upper lip? --Dschwen (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nomination has been withdrawn, so all comments/questions should cease, but as you persist in asking. I performed an exposure adjustment to remove reflection from the glass and tone down highlights [mainly from the top of the head]. I should have maybe masked the lips so that they wouldn't get effected by the adjustment. Julielangford (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Julielangford (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 13:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nuclear missile launch keys.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 14:17:13
2 Minutes to Midnight...

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You should save it as a different picture. I think that's too much denoised, and fine details, especially on letters, has been lost. Overall it looks blurry compared to original. --Lošmi (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Until I can denoise it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 13:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Javan langur.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 09:32:38
Javan Lutung, or Javan Langur

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Julielangford - uploaded by Julielangford - nominated by Julielangford -- Julielangford (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Julielangford (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pity the crop is so tight. Can you make a version that is cropped a little less strictly (top and bottom mostly)? -- JovanCormac 10:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would love to, but unfortunately, this is not cropped post edit. After trying to capture these really fast little monkeys for most of the day, when I got one in the enclosure viewing window, I wasn't going to risk changing my lens for fear he would go bounding off out of sight again. He is literally just two feet away from me, and with a 300mm lens on, thats all I could fit in. Moving back would result in more reflection in the glass due to the sun being behind me, so I thought the tight framing would be better than unwanted reflection. I did move back for a few shots after this, where you can see more of him, but, he isn't facing me and they are profile shots. Julielangford (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the explanation. I Symbol support vote.svg Support anyway. -- JovanCormac 11:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. As it turned out, I would have had plenty lf time to change that lens - it took a good 20 minutes for him to turn to look my way, but not worth the risk of him running off :) Julielangford (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unfortunetly the DOF is shallow and lacks sharpeness. ZooFari 23:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Julielangford (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 13:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Souk-ahras barage.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 17:55:33
Ain Dyalah dam lack, Algeria.

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the photo has a resolution below 2Mpixels and there are no strong mitigating reasons. --Slaunger (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • That said, I agree with Dschwen that it is a pleasant picture Face-smile.svg --Slaunger (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inachis io Lill-Jansskogen.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2009 at 02:53:10
Inachis Io

Result: Symbol support vote.svg Support = 15, Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose = 0, Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral = 0, 100%. Featured. Kwj2772 (msg) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spice thyme.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 22:39:09
Thyme

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and nominated by Daniel78 22:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Image was not downsized, just a slight crop. A similar image exists and is currently used in the en-article, but it has much lower quality: Thyme-spice.jpg.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too many individual particles and size of particles too small. I would have photographed a smaller sample closer up and include an object to indicate scale. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was looking at the previous image and thought that I should make the pile a bit smaller which I did, but I wanted to still keep it as a "spice-pile" and not individual grains. But perhaps thats a good idea too, not sure, but do you really need to see a spice that much closer :) ?. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - agree with Tomas that a scale should be added - then I'll support. Because of the detail, the dried leaves appear to be as large as, say, tea leaves, which is not accurate. I would also add into the description that the pile includes both leaves and (tiny) twigs. Interesting to see this up close! Downtowngal (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try to add a scale later today. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree that this would benefit from the addition of a scale, but I think the size of the sample is great. It constitutes what I would call, a pinch of thyme, which is basically one of the main measurements that this herb is used in. Julielangford (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If you nominate it as a Valued Image it will probably succeed, but for FP I find it too ordinary. -- H005 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, not featured[edit]

Thyme

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is with added scale information as requested above.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - this is really quite small and a remarkable photograph IMO. Downtowngal (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose WB, just a bunch of dry leaves, no technical merit, photographic or encyclopedic value for me. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For the same reasons as the other version. -- H005 (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:360° Hohe Kugel Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2009 at 20:12:05
Hohe Kugel Panoramic 360° 

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 08:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marin Headlands with Rodeo Beach.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2009 at 22:51:15
Marin Headlands

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a pity we can't support more than once, because I would support this lots of times. Crisp, clean, lovely stitch and that bird in flight is just awesome. Love this. Julielangford (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request please geolocate --ianaré (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
added.--Two+two=4 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 08:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basilique Saint-Pie X Luc Viatour.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2009 at 10:10:29
x300px|Basilica of St. Pius X of Lourdes

zut, j'ai pas pensé au ¢ du bâtiment.... Je me renseigne! --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
l'architecte est mort en 2002, il faudra donc encore attendre de nombreuses années avant de publier cette photo, elle est donc à supprimer. --Luc Viatour (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time2wait.svg On hold, waiting for a confirmation of the copyright (eh oui, les lois sont chiantes…) →Diti the penguin — 16:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a copyvio on commons. However you can upload it to fr-wiki because there is some kind of fair use. And you can upload it to any other local wiki because the French paragraph does not apply there. This is ridiculous but my request here to change this policy was declined. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice picture! If this is a copyvio according to French legislation, then that particular French law is very stupid indeed. -- MJJR (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abandoned Hiace antenna.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2009 at 10:36:49
Nature reclaims it's domain. 

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Snow White Crayfish (Procambarus sp.) Fighting a Mystery Snail (Pomacea bridgesii) for Food landscape.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2009 at 15:24:48
Crayfish fighting a snail 

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 06:59:41
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded by Madmax32 - nominated by Claus (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Claus (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Déjà vu. —kallerna™ 07:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A technically perfect photo and an excellent female specimen of Homo sapiens. The key features of the anatomy are clearly visible, giving the picture significant educational value. The phylum Arthropoda is more prominent in the Featured Picture library than the phylum Chordata, and far more than the genus Homo. I welcome any opportunity to add something to the small stack of Featured human pictures. -- JovanCormac 13:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Geolocation, phone number would be nice! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lovely image, but weird looking backlighting [that could be my eyes though :)] Is the model actually at this location for the shoot? Julielangford (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've seen a voting of this photo before, and it's stiched from two images. —kallerna™ 14:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So my eyes are fine :) Julielangford (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like this image, and more people images are needed here, its a pity that an extensive edit isnt mentioned in the description, but I think it deserves support based on the model alone.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Julielangford (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral – I agree, we need more pictures of Homo sapiens sapiens and hopefully not just of people who look too perfect to be true. Of course, the image fulfills the guidlines (one might argue about the value though). On the other hand I think an image that was obviously made with alot of effort deserves a better background than that. So neutral to me. --Ernie (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As Tomascastelazo! --Karel (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strongy retouched, which is against our guidelines (“Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.”). You can tell by the typical look the model has (I'm familiar with such photo manipulation). →Diti the penguin — 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can argue that the main subject is not Michelle merkin the person, but Michelle Merkin the product. Then any sexed-up image (as I suppose it is the standard in the "industry") would be perfectly acceptable. Then again, you give zero evidence or even any concrete indications and base you argument fully on one little known authority in the field: you ;-) I'm familiar with such photo manipulation. --Dschwen (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that the picture of the year is heavily doctored, there used to be three horses, I think your argument fails. GerardM (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I assume you got the indentation wrong? --Dschwen (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Econt (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - as Diti. Downtowngal (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This has around the same amount of editing most pictures here do, it looks the way it does because of a much more intricate lighting set-up. --Calibas (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the fill-in flash usually accentuates the natural defaults. If we can't see them on the model, it's obviously because they have been digitally removed. →Diti the penguin — 11:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An excellent professional glamor portrait. The subject was generous enough to place this under free license. Technically sufficient for featured quality, and recognizing it as featured may encourage more professionals to place material under free license. Durova (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strongy retouched, bad crop. There's one photo of Michele Merkin which is better. —kallerna™ 14:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Kallerna, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Heavy retouching is the norm for these types of images, so I don't see a problem with it. Image is of good quality and is very representative of modelling photography. Also as Durova. --ianaré (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most people are ok with retouching of images nowadays, especially on a glamour shot like this. I do glamour shots, and I retouch some a lot, but I always state it. I think that is the main difference with most people, they don't mind it, but it needs to be stated. I still support this though, based just on the model. Julielangford (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks artificial. --AM (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --JalalV (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Durova. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For Durova. Jacopo Werther (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Durova, Julielangford, Jovan and others. We need more celeb FPs and this is a good one.--Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As a glamour shot, this is good, and the model is well enough known. It is a standard in that industry for the photographs to be airbrushed and photoshopped and altered until they are almost unrecognisable; anyone who doesn't know that and is fooled by this pic should definitely not be looking at glossy magazines. Maedin\talk 12:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you are right, but we are no glossy magazine here. --AM (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I probably wasn't clear: I wasn't suggesting that we are. It was just a joke, that if people think these airbrushed, touched-up people are real, they are probably suffering from a severe inferiority complex, ;-) As a photography and compositional type, these are, by definition, artificial. I was only implying that it's common knowledge. Maedin\talk 13:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. These kind of pics are produced for advertising, I presume. --AM (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I understand retouching and artificiality are part of this genre; that is not why I oppose. It just doesn't wow me. Jonathunder (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per Jovan Cormac. We need more Homo Sapiens pictures. ;oD Yann (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 15 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 08:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:M20 - Trifid Nebula.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 08:33:44


Pictogram voting delete.svg Unfortunately the powers that be have decided the licensing issue has not been resolved and have subsequently deleted the image :'( I got permission from the author to release it as well, never mind. 

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 09:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crissy Field beach and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2009 at 12:18:03
Crissy Field beach and Golden Gate Bridge

Sometimes the fog (tule fog) is going over the Bay and the bridge looks like it is the bridge over the fog and not the bridge over the Bay. In my opinion it creates some interesting and unusual contrast between the sunny beach and the fog over the Bay. The man you'te asking about is holding a special tool to throw balls for dogs.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why?--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, it's not that hard to state a reason for opposing. I really consider it the most basic level of politeness. -- JovanCormac 14:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote will not be counted without a valid reason (see header above). ZooFari 17:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this photo is no wow... That's all... -- Yiyi (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well please specify next time. ZooFari 19:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that oppose votes with no reasoning are counted. It may be rude to not give a reason, but there is no explicit rule stating that it makes the vote null. Maedin\talk 07:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very unusual picture, though a little color adjustment couldn't hurt (observe the boy with the red shirt by the water about 1/4 from the left of the picture; that red is definitely too much). -- JovanCormac 14:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I like the fog in contrast with the sunny beach, but the colors do feel off. Too red? Jonathunder (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a very unusual shot with the fog bank over the sea, but I like it. I think the man with the ball swinger is in the panorama twice due to the distance he walked in between your shots, which makes this even more remarkable for me - very true representation, and hence why panorama's are quite difficult to do when there are moving subjects involved. Slightly over saturated [toward red], IMO, but not so much that I would oppose it. Julielangford (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow IMO. —kallerna™ 16:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stitching problems. A walking person has been cloned. A wave is half cut. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At last a valid oppose reason! I will work with the image and for now Pictogram voting delete.svg --Two+two=4 (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You might want to add the information about the fog to the image description. It's a major part of the picture, and for those of us not based in San Francisco (which is most of the world) it'd be nice to have the phenomena explained. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did.--Two+two=4 (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 09:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bobcat kitten eating rabbit in tree 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 00:24:18
bobcat kitten

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: blurred and has lack of detail. --Slaunger (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

That said, it is still a nice shot. --Slaunger (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very reluctant oppose though. Great image, shame it's so small. Julielangford (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lucignolo fasti verulani.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 14:20:59
Lucignolo, mangiafuoco ai Fasti Verulani X edizione

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pasgabriele - uploaded by Pasgabriele - nominated by Pasgabriele -- Pasgabriele (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pasgabriele (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, border. —kallerna™ 14:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kallerna. Border spoils it. Julielangford (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Less concerned about the border but about noise and sharpness. -- H005 (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sorry to spoil the party.... Facts: F5, 1/160 exposure, manual exposure, ISO?, considering the light situation, aperture and shutter speed, probably above 1600 ISO. So, technical reality, adjusted to light reality means that whatever you do, in order to capture this moment, under these conditions, high ISO is necessary, and whith that, comes grain, pixels and funny shadows, etc., etc., same as with film. So, if you want nothing of that, studio setting is the name of the game, which in turn, it would negate the intrinsic value of this image, its context, surroundings and technical expertise of the photographer, that in this case, did a very, very good job. So technically speaking, the photograppher did things right. On top of that, we have the photographic value, the social implication of the image, the aesthetic quality that overrides mechanical aspects (pixels, shadows, etc.). As far as the border, easy, whoever chooses to use it can crop it out without losing quality. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is a problem, and the border definitely needs to go. Might support if some editing is done. -- JovanCormac 20:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Noise is as inherent to these type of photographs as darkness to night.... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment for JovanCormac. Great image...I think that I have much to learn..Thanks for the example!!!--Pasgabriele 20:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moscow City - 2009-08.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 17:38:38
Moscow City

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dmottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting composition with the moon above, and the sunset (or rise?), but unfortunately diffuse light, lack of contrast, pale colours. -- H005 (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine with me.--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice evening light (taken at 21:32), good composition. -- MJJR (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though there might be a tilt of a ° or two--Avala (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - lack of contrast, no wow - not quite the right lighting. Downtowngal (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As others. The lack of contrast is too big of a problem to overlook. -- JovanCormac 09:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support - Pudelek (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see the contrast as a problem. Time3000 (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Downtowngal--Luxembourg (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good --Jklamo (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It loooks artificial like pfotomontage. The size of moon compared with the buidings... --Karel (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With a telephoto lens (270 mm!) one can easily obtain such a moon size, without any montage or other Photoshopping. -- MJJR (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wow --Kolossos (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Piazza della repubblica hdr.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 13:33:40
Piazza della repubblica di notte, Roma

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pasgabriele - uploaded by Pasgabriele - nominated by Pasgabriele -- Pasgabriele (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pasgabriele (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is black, overcontrasted. —kallerna™ 14:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What's wrong about a black sky? That's how it looks during the night in a city. Also I find the contrast just right. -- H005 (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's hard work getting HDR from a moving object [fountain, people, cars}, so I think this is excellent. Julielangford (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality issues some noise in the dark areas of the fountain, the people in the foreground and so on. I believe the image taken at day time would be more encyclopedic.--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose there are numerous issues with the quality of this image.--Avala (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's hard work getting HDR from a moving object. Yes, hard to get a clean result, which is not the case here. HDR is pointless here, plus image is tilted. --Dschwen (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scotora2 PJC.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 20:38:58
Jacques-Cartier River valley

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wicked Witch2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 03:52:21
The Wicked Witch of the West, from the first edition of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by William Wallace Denslow - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Wicked Witch.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Wicked Witch of the West, from the first edition of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good scan, but no wow factor. Please keep in mind that The Wizard of Oz is chiefly a US thing with little relevance to the rest of the world. -- H005 (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Five hours of careful restoration, credited to a scanner...sigh Durova (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate that, but I am assessing all images by the same standards, regardless of the effort that was put into them. -- H005 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Obviously took a lot of hard work when compared to the original version. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The wizard of Oz is considered world literature. Based on it are some of the more important movies seen in the whole world. I support it.. GerardM (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply because Hollywood movies are seen everywhere, but apart from the fragments you pick up in those films hardly anybody outside the USA has ever read this book or knows in detail what it's about. -- H005 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    GerardM is from The Netherlands. Durova (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This book, for example, is well known in ex-USSR as en:The Wizard of the Emerald City even without Hollywood influence. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm from Israel and have read almost all of L. Frank Baum's Oz books. It's a great restoration of a great image. —Ynhockey (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Great work. Jonathunder (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good and valued --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Idea leuconoe Weiße Baumnymphe.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 10:36:44
Idea leuconoe

Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Rawa Blues 2008 39.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 08:13:53
Shakin' Dudi

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gimmelwald-Grütschalp 29.07.2009 16-04-06.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 15:25:22
Eiger, Mönch and Jungfrau seen from the Flower Trail between Mürren and Grütschalp

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Simisa - uploaded by Simisa - nominated by Simisa -- Simisa (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Simisa (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I suggest you geocode it, including a heading parameter. --Slaunger (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The pic is geocoded, it only takes a while until it appears in the Commons -- Simisa (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean in the EXIF, and that Dschwens bot will extract it into a {{Location}} shortly? I see an altitude in the extended EXIF info but no lat,long. Am I misunderstanding something? --Slaunger (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct; I notice this for a while now that geocoded pictures do not show the {{Location}} immediately after upload. It can take up to 3 days until the exact location shows up in the Commons. -- Simisa (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now it is geocoded without doing anything from my side! It's a time matter of the system. -- Simisa (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -Pudelek (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luxembourg (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it is a bit overexposed. Yann (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The picture is a 1:1 conversion of a RAW-file without any adjustments -- Simisa (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So? That just means that a) you should have made some adjustments and b) your camera exposure settings were not tuned correctly for this scene. --Dschwen (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What can I say? You are so perfectly right! -- Simisa (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Ardea herodias CT4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 16:43:13
Great Blue Heron

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cephas (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I realy like this, great DOF, and nice detail on the birds face and beak. Julielangford (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although I believe one should try cropping it a bit more on the right. -- H005 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality is good but I do not like the crop.--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info What about this new crop? --Cephas (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I like it better. -- H005 (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like it more as well, although I liked it before too :) Julielangford (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like this crop. It would be better to have a couple different versions on here so people can decide which they like better. Also by changing the image you don't know if the person would change their vote. --ianaré (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makele-90 (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not find the composition particularly interesting. --Slaunger (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Slaunger. —kallerna™ 07:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I hate to oppose, but I agree with Slaunger. Too much of the bird is cut off, the background is more prominent than is ideal, and there's no interest or movement or horizon or environment. Maedin\talk 08:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured[edit]

Ardea herodias CT5.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Previous version --Cephas (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same thing. Do not fancy the composition - it is too ordinary. --Slaunger (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cynthia cardui Malmö Folkets Park 2.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 19:06:52
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 09:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Versions:[edit]

Cynthia cardui Malmö Folkets Park 3.JPG
Cynthia cardui Malmö Folkets Park.JPG

File:Old Exoskeleton of a White Crayfish (Procambarus sp.) after Moulting.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 04:55:37
Skin of a Crayfish after Moulting

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mlogic - uploaded by Mlogic - nominated by Mlogic -- Mlogic (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mlogic (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but like the crayfish picture nominated previously, this one is seriously lacking in sharpness. -- JovanCormac 05:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:JPEG Corruption.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2009 at 18:10:12
a corrupted jpeg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This image is somewhat unique and very valuable due to the fact that it is a broken jpeg file. Created by Codell when the camera was prematurely relieved of power while saving the file, the image contains a broken Huffman table which caused the image to not render correctly and the file size to be much larger than "complete" jpeg files. The broken Huffman table (which determines entropy and minimum redundancy) is used for the optimization of jpeg files (if I read the information correctly).- uploaded by Codell - nominated by carol -- carol (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While I think it is possible to create a broken jpeg by editing the binary file, having an example that was created naturally and/or accidentally is really cool, useful, unique and educational. -- carol (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting proposal. :-) However, all that makes it possibly eligible for VI status, but not for FP - it's actually the opposite of the here required quality. -- H005 (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very interesting proposal, indeed (ignoring all rules!), but for the same reason the worst athlete don't get Olympics medals for his absence of skills, this (the worst an image can be) don't deserve a FP status, I think. --S23678 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an attempt to follow the logic of the opposition to this image (and not just the oppose that this is nested beneath) my mind keeps landing on this image: Table-cloth 2008-1.jpg which is an image of a very beautiful home accessory but the original purpose of the craft which created it was for building shelters, navigating the seas and for hunting and procuring food -- all which often required the knotting of vines and later ropes. It seems that the same opposition to this artsy manipulation of a jpeg should also apply to the home decoration which those knots have "de-evolved" into.... -- carol (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This could never be a Featured Picture, simply because what is special about it isn't the picture - it's the file. The actual picture file is corrupt. Not only does the image displayed have nothing to do with the file's value (which is certainly high), but it also depends on factors such as resolution and browser. Try it out. The thumbnail looks vastly different from the full size picture - and not just in size. This is super cool. But you cannot really speak of it as a picture. -- JovanCormac 07:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would probably do better on English Wikipedia, where encyclopedic value is an issue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nah. This one looks like someone's really high :-D After all, if making a file like this a featured picture, it would be good to make it more... hmm well not just a raw picture but in a composition with something. --Aktron (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (you should check your highdar).... -- carol (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vista nocturna del casco histórico de Peñíscola.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 12:16:56
Night view of the historic centre of Peñíscola, Castellón, Spain.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Rastrojo - uploaded by Rastrojo - nominated by Rastrojo -- Rastrojo (D•ES) 12:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Rastrojo (D•ES) 12:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral – I'm unsure. It strikes me as overexposed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much poor quality sand in the foreground, the crop is too tight, other quality issues.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Exposure is quite right IMHO (although it could have benefitted from HDRI), but strong tilt and crop too wide on bottom and to tight on top. -- H005 (talk)
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kitesurfer displays emotions.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 14:59:13
Kitesurfer displays emotions.

It is a rare picture of a person, who displays emotions taken in a "wild". I mean the person did not pose for the picture.--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per TonyBallioni, plus the facial expression is hardly visible without zooming in because the face is so dark and small. If it was a well-done close-up of his face, alright, but that's not the case here. -- H005 (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose...and on top of that the boat in the upper right corner is distracting, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The boat could be easily cut off.--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...which would be a natural element of the preparation work prior to nominating, but is not easy I think without cropping of other more vital elements of the photo or a massive clone job...--Slaunger (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is what you say. I left the boat in purpose because it was mentioned in the description of the image. Here is the image with "no cropping of other more vital elements of the photo or a massive clone job " Kitesurfer displays emotions 1.jpg--Two+two=4 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its better than I thought although a real pedantic (as I am, sorry) could claim that the white wave in the upper right corner is slightly distracting and the crop is a little too tight for his taste Face-smile.svg. Don't worry about it. Keep them coming. You have some good stuff. --Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why, of course I've realized already that the waves on the ocean and sign Pier 39 at Pier 39 are very distracting Face-smile.svg--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like your Pier 39 sign at Pier 39. Seems fitting to have there. --Slaunger (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More fitting than a sign saying Pier 38! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cap Serrat - May 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 18:08:18
Cap Serrat, Northern Coast of Tunisia 

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CTA red line rerouted.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 18:51:12
Chicago 'L' train at Randolph and Wabash station.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Chicago 'L' train at Randolph and Wabash station. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dschwen (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Photographic quality is great, good use of shallow DOF, but the overall impression is not special enough for FP, there's no "wow!" -- H005 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is too tightly cropped at the lower edge for my taste and I find the partially cut "2" sign distracting. Like the train and scenary though. --Slaunger (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing to really wow me in this, and the sky being as white as it is in the distance, just looks like a block of nothing. The train is good though Julielangford (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of the 2-sign. Otherwise I like it. —kallerna™ 10:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zarren Wullepitmolen R01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 21:10:13
Zarren, Belgium: the Wullepit windmill

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is quite a bit of noise in the sky and the unreadable sign shows the picture's sharpness problems. -- JovanCormac 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sawmill category.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2009 at 10:16:38
x300px|A sawblade at an industrial mill.

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Sorry, but is that a joke? 247 x 280 pixels? Please read the guidelines before nominating. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

-- JovanCormac 12:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corvus caurinus (profile).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 19:22:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A Northwestern Crow near Whittier, AK. All by ianaré
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice pic, but too noisy for me. --Makele-90 (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Byron Glacier AK.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2009 at 07:35:58
Byron Glacier panorama

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Byron Glacier panorama, Alaska. All by ianaré
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very nice and very cold --Pudelek (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - beautiful pic under not so easy light conditions -- Simisa (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality but the composition does not catch my eye. --Slaunger (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow. -- H005 (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can see the entire process of a glacier : snow falling at the top of the mountain, to glacier, to snow, to water ... --ianaré (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Trăng tròn trên City Bown.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2009 at 12:33:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: there's absolutely no details 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.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You should have a look at previous successful nominations in order to have an idea of the expected image quality. Upsampling is not a solution to a low resolution. --S23678 (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This candidate was also moved to the same name as the previous nomination, which messes up the logs. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fontana di Villa Gonzaga (Olgiate Olona).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2009 at 01:45:17
Villa Gonzaga fountain (Olgiate Olona - Varese - Italy)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yiyi (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO this picture is overexposed (blown whites surrounding the statue). -- JovanCormac 20:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Dynamic range of the scene exceeds the capabilities of the camera. Lowering the exposure would make the shadows in th bg too dark. You need different lighting conditions here (i.e. overcast sky, late evening/early morning sun). --Dschwen (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 07:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Too bright, but I love the scene. Julielangford (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (11).jpg, not featured[edit]

Syrphidae sp. 

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SunflowerSeed2009.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 04:42:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is a poorly lit image of a common object --ianaré (talk) 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. 
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ardea herodias CT3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 01:05:30
Great Blue Heron

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cephas (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a great photo, but it needs a quick denoise. Will support if done. -- JovanCormac 05:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is what was missing from the other nomination. Oh, I don't see much noise at all? Looks fine to me. Maedin\talk 08:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Korall (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basil-cathedral-morning.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 13:42:14
The Saint Basil's Cathedral at the Red Square in Moscow

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A further Moscow image as FP candidate; created, uploaded and nominated by --S[1] 13:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S[1] 13:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good.--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The painted zebra crossing in the forefront spoils it a little for me, but overall, a stunning image, so I give it support. Julielangford (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but this is lacking in crispness (observe the trees on the left hand side and the sign) and contrast/color vibrancy. -- JovanCormac 17:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just common picture, composition problemes, overall quality... --Karel (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 08:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Umnik (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Karel. Plus darkish in the lower half. --Dschwen (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The subject has lots of potential; is a reshoot possible? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not the next time --S[1] 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's sad, because you picked great lighting conditions. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:California Sea Lions at Pier 39 August 7 2009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2009 at 12:48:59
Pier 39

Why panorama? I believed that it is interesting to show wild sea lions peacefully minding their own business in the center of a big city. There are hundreds of the images similar to the one you mentioned. There are very few panoramas, maybe none is as complete as mine is.--Two+two=4 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Several severe stiching errors - too numerous to point out individually. There is something else, which distracts my eye. It is as if there is some wavyness in the horizon and/or vertical lines in the buildings are not vertical. Have not checked with a ruler (yet) though. But if you fix the stitching errors, I will spend some more time scrutinizing it. --Slaunger (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I cannot fix the stitching errors because I do not see them on my 20 inches monitor. Maybe you could point out three or four the most severe ones? Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral You've fixed two significant stitching errors. One of them gave us a turning sea lion in action, good. So I think we are getting there. I have added observations regarding two minor stitching errors as annotations on the file page - I have reported one of them previously. The annotations are just informative, feel free to remove them again from the file page if you find them too pedantic - the annotations are convenient for pointing them out. Hell, if you fix those two as well, I might even support Face-smile.svg. --Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support despite the stitching errors. Those should be fixed, though. @Two+two=4: Look along the bridge in the left half of the picture. You will find it is "broken" in some places. -- JovanCormac 05:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jovan is right, also look along the roofs. A good way to detect stitching errors is to look for discontinuities (abrupt displacements) in lines which ought to be straight, like in the bridge mentioned. There are plenty of those there, which I can easily see on my 15 inch laptop monitor. I am quite surprised no-one else has noticed that and/or withheld support until it is fixed and it makes me wonder if reviewers take the time to go beyond preview size. We should go for the best of the best at FPC at that includes nitpicking over fixable details IMOFace-smile.svg. Only one image in 2300 image on Commons gets featured after all... --Slaunger (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      If you mean the roof of the building just below the palms, there are no errors there. It is how the roof really looks. I could upload one of the originals with the roof, if you'd like me to.Otherwise I still see no errors along the roofs. Maybe you could name one specific roof you have in mind. I could upload an original of the roof and we could compare. --Two+two=4 (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that one looks OK, I had in mind the building with the sign "Boodin" (or something like that). Also note one of the suspending cables of the GGB which has a "step". --Slaunger (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This one?--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. The stitching problems on the roof of that building are minor though as compared to the bridge. --Slaunger (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I still see no error on the building and the minor error along the cable was corrected.--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kallerna -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could only repeat that it is not a problem to take images of sea lions in California. They are everywhere even in the places where they do not suppose to be like for example here.I believe it is much more interesting and much more encyclopedic to take images of sea lions with a view of their surroundings.--Two+two=4 (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominator on this point. It is more interesting to see the sea lions in a context where its surroundings are seen. --Slaunger (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kallerna. The biggest "Pier 39" disturb me. Between the two "Pier 39" there is two panorama errors : a head of a sea lion is not sticked with his body but few centimeters down. Upper, a part of a sea lion head is missing -- Olivier Jaulent (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no missing head. Sea lions they could turn their heads you know. Maybe it is better to make sure before claiming such severe error as a missing head, Here's the original with a "missing head" Sea lions on pier 39 4.jpg--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not speaking about a sea lion which is turning his head. I saw that you have corrected the first head I was speaking about, the one which was not sticked with the body. But There is always a mistake. The second error is just upper the one you have corrected, it is the sea lion which is sleeping a black one : a part of the head if cover by the wood of the floor. --Olivier Jaulent (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about the black sea lion who is sleeping on the dock before the last one he too looks exactly the same as he does at the original image that I linked to just above.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinate of error : 4174x1305 (when you take upper left as start point - 0x0 - ), but as I said there is the big "Pier 39" which is really disturbing me too --Olivier Jaulent (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to work with coordinates. Maybe you could mark the error and upload the image? I'd like to ask Slaunger to do the same. Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some stitching problems

Sure, here are my observations. One of them wre the sea lion head which really looked cut of, I have striked that out. Hope this helps in sending the message. It is not easy to do when the animals are moving between images. --Slaunger (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stitching errors in the background are really minor. The major problems are in the foreground. --Slaunger (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will work on it.--Two+two=4 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know which stitching software you are using (could be relevant to specify on the file page btw), but I can recommend thee freely license application Hugin as has an intelligent blend mechanism which avoid moving objects in the overlap between images provided that the overlap is sufficiently large and the movements are not too massive. It may work, or it may not work in your case, I don't know. --Slaunger (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used Hugin but it was a very hard image to stitch. Too much was going on including the tourists who were popping up in my view finder all the time. Thanks for helping me to find the errors. I corrected foreground ones. For correcting background errors I first need to order a new eyeglasses I guess Face-smile.svg--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your challenges with the stitching. It is a hard job with all those movements, and maybe I am overkeen 'bout them stitching errors, but thanks for addressing the worst ones anyhow. See my changed vote above. --Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Slaunger. It is really nice of you not only to help me to find the errors, but even to change your oppose vote. I corrected few more.--Two+two=4 (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I realize I am a pedantic pain in the a....--Slaunger (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I had to search for several minutes to find what appeared to be a stitching error; that's hardly significant enough to justify denying the photo featured status. I also don't mind the sign. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really like the complete view and showing the sea lions' environment. However, maybe I am also too pedantic, but allowing stitching errors is a no-no for an FP. (I realise the major ones have been fixed, but the others (particularly the one on the bridge) are still important to me.) Sometimes the errors are unavoidable or extremely difficult to fix, I know that, but as a result, not every good view can be an FP. I also feel silly saying this, but that Pier 39 sign is annoying, :-) I would like this so much more if the view was from behind the sign instead of in front of it. Sorry! Maedin\talk 13:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, you wanted me to take the images behind the sign, which means to jump to the docks , hurt myself and then got arrested for the approaching sea lions? Strange.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I didn't know if it was possible or not! Sounds like it's a good thing the sign is in the pic, then, Face-smile.svg. Maedin\talk 14:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is how it looks and by the way all the errors pointed out by Slaunger were fixed.--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So they have, looks good! Thanks for letting me know, I switch to Symbol support vote.svg Support. Maedin\talk 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleared my cache three times, reloaded again and again, but on my screen I still see the same two medium stitching errors I have marked as annotations on the file page. So either I am hallucinating, do not know how to reload or the errors are still there... --Slaunger (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am missing something but I do not know where to look for the annotations you added to the file page. Could you please link me to them? Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I forgot to tell you about Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator. It is a cool new gadget, which will very soon be enabled by default (I hope), see Commons:Village Pump#New interface feature. I think it will be of great help at FPC in the future for discussion specific problems with nominations. --Slaunger (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You simply need to enable that as described, and then, when your mouse is hovering over the file preview on the file page, everything will be clear for you. --Slaunger (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did it, but for some reason it does not work for me. Were the errors you poinet out to in the annotations the same ones that you pointed out at the image you've uploaded?--Two+two=4 (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you cleared your cache also? If yes, you should see two very small boxes indicating problem areas on the file page preview (not on this page), when hovering the mouse over the image. One of the areas is a previously marked one, which does not seems to have been addressed. The other one is a new one. --Slaunger (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected one more error (the old one) I do not thing there is an error in the other place you poined out. Here's the original.--Two+two=4 (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Juvenile Erinaceus europaeus kallerna.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 09:21:11
Juvenile West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus).

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 09:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —kallerna™ 09:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeautiful creature, well photographed. I love all the other shots of this little one as well :) Julielangford (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I prefer the animal in its natural environment. The hands are too distracting too. Yann (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment But then you don't have scale for the size. —kallerna™ 09:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ideally it would be on grass, or something similar, but a hedgehog is a wild animal, and they do interact with us humans, as we are part of their environment, so I think this is still a true representation of a wild animal, in a wild environment [they really like our gardens]. Sometimes captive images can also be extrememly valuable for people to use. A good quality captive shot will outdo a bad quality wild shot any day IMO. Julielangford (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Yann -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality is great, the spikes in particular are extremely sharp. But I really dislike the composition with the hands and I also think the image is a little too bright. -- JovanCormac 17:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Agree that the hands act as a useful scale. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeTechnical quality is ok although DOF could be higher, especially if you control the subject like this. Hands occlude the subject too much. Scene looks to unnatural. Picture lacks wow and artistic merit. --Dschwen (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The dirty thumbnail in foreground is seen even in thumbnail and looks very unpleasant.--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upper Lehman Creek.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 14:47:15
Waterfall at Upper Lehman Creek

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question how is the camera location? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

file:Royal Opera House at night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2009 at 17:35:54
Royal Opera House

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pickering - Greatbatch - Jane Austen - Pride and Prejudice - She then told him what Mr. Darcy had voluntarily done for Lydia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 01:45:17
Pride and Prejudice

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by William Greatbatch and George Pickering - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is one of the first two illustrations of Pride and Prejudice. The first edition lacked illustrations, and it was this 1833 edition that first provided images of the characters. The other is forthcoming. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- GerardM (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- It might just be me, but it appears that the scanned image is at a bit of an angle, I'm inclined to support but I was wondering if anyone else noticed it or if it is just me imagining. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most engravings from this period aren't square, and it's much more noticable on a computer, where it's surrounded by square borders. I had to try and balance the various lines and angles, and this was the best compromise I could find. I suppose I could rotate the text seperately to the engraving, but I don't really like doing that if I can avoid it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its fine I was just wondering, your explination makes perfect sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. Adam's right about the angle, btw. Twenty-first century eyes are accustomed to precision in right angles that wouldn't have been very noticeable to pre-computing era audiences. Durova (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good job. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:360° Schadonapaß.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2009 at 20:38:53
360° Schadonapaß in Austria

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Stunning. AlexAH (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Outstanding Julielangford (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice --Muhammad (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support –Juliancolton | Talk 04:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Flawless panorama and a cool 11k pixels wide. A winner. -- JovanCormac 07:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Paris 16 (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Definitely a WOW for this one! -- Simisa (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Exposure is less than optimal. --Dschwen (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Making this an oppose after closer examination of the image. I cannot believe that nobody realizes that this is severely underexposed. --Dschwen (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice panorama and indeed very nice landscape.   ■ MMXXtalk  16:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good. --Karel (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent panorama, landscape and mix of colours. --Korman (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm guessing they think the underexposure gives it a nice mood? Not fond of the darkness myself, nor the vignetting. Would probably support an edit that addresses these issues. Maedin\talk 09:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image may be lightly underexposed, but more than a light correction risks clipping in some image parts. The "vignetting" are real variations of the sky brightness. -- Klaus with K (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -Theklan (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC) I see it perfectly balanced[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very nice. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Gran calavera eléctrica2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2009 at 04:25:14
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • I am reminded of a family joke here. My grandma begot 3 daughters and one son, mostly in the 1940s. In the 1960s, my grandma and my uncle had the same milkman (milk was delievered via motor vehicle in some locations still in the 1960s) and I overheard my grandma say to the milkman, very politely about my aunt (her sons wife): "She is my favorite daughter-in-law." -- carol (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - the same question I asked Adam - why of all the images Posada created, do you think this one is among the best? (IMO such a statement should accompany any such nomination). Since almost all nominated restored public domain works of art make FP, we rely on the nominator's judgment. A statement from the nominator wouldn't reduce our responsibility to judge the effectiveness and wow factor of the art, but it would explain the nominator's vetting process. Downtowngal (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The selection had a lot to do with the technical quality of the source file. It's among his calaveras--the work that Posada is best known for doing. Few of those are available in really high resolution digitized versions. Serious digital restoration work starts at about a 10MB uncompressed file. The original for this was over 60MB (around 25MB after cropping), which is a good scan at a good size. For this artist the choices basically came down to this image or "Calavera Oaxaqueña", which is compositionally superior but unfortunately someone at the Library of Congress altered the histogram on that source file, which makes it a poor choice for restoration. It's an exaggeration to say "almost all nominated restored public domain works of art make FP"--often they don't, and the options are usually so limited that specific explanation becomes repetitive. It would be wonderful to operate in a digital environment where such discussions become a feasible FPC requirement. We're several years away from that; possibly by featuring what we can get more institutions will go the route of openness. (Remember the NPG issued a legal threat last month; things are far from easy). Durova (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With Posada´s art, it is impossible to select anyone print as the best, for the technique was almost the same throughtout his production (in general terms), so what we are left with is basically the strength of the message in his production, that is, the judgement would have to be on content and context, which is practically impossible to determine that type of value. What is real is that he created a character that springs from the mexican ethos in a very, very powerful manner and was able to capture relevant social customs and cultural traits during his time, and at the same time, his work has become ageless... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - thank you, Durova, and please don't take my oppose as a lack of gratitude; I agree the other image is better and I just don't think the artistic merits of this image warrant FP. Downtowngal (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- GerardM (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC) a high quality restoration of an important artist.[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We're hardly limited to one image from a major artist. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Kitesurfer August 8 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2009 at 13:21:12
kitesurfer

Too late. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vista panorámica de Peñíscola desde el castillo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 12:18:28
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of Peñíscola, Castellón, Spain, from the castle.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Rastrojo - uploaded by Rastrojo - nominated by Rastrojo -- Rastrojo (D•ES) 12:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Rastrojo (D•ES) 12:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting place.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Conditional oppose Very nice stitch job. (How many images do you have there and which SW did you use to stitch it?). Good light and very detailed and sharp. Very pleasant to look at and quite impressive. I am very close at supporting, but the the view, light and composition is not quite as breathtaking as in most FP panoramas in my opinion. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my, Dschwen is right. You have by the way also a stitching error on the roof of the buiding where there are the big letters "Peniscula". I've changed my vote to a conditional oppose. Will change it back to neutral if and when the tilt mentioned by Dschwen and the stitching error is addressed. --Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where do you see the stitching error? :S Rastrojo (D•ES) 10:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't you see the building with the huge red on white Peniscula letter in front of it, on the pier/mole going out to the left and up in the photo? Or can't you see the stitching error on the roof of that building? --Slaunger (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find neither the building nor the stitching error :S Rastrojo (D•ES) 11:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have marked the problem area with an annotation on the file page. This will be a very handy FPC tool when enabled by default by a gadget shortly. --Slaunger (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no stitching error: here's a part of the image. Regards. Rastrojo (D•ES) 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for showing me one of the images. It does indeed confirm that there is a stitching error along one of the sides of the roof visible as a nudge/dislocation/small step along the edge to the back - a step which is clearly not present in the original. As if the two photos in the seem are offset by a pixel or two. Do you want me to upload a derivative work where it is explicitly highlighted with a little red circle around the problem area? It is not a big thing, but it should be easy to fix. --Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for showing this image, Rastrojo, because there is a misalignment visible indeed. Where? Between the brown sand beach and the harbour basin there is a double decker coach on the parking lot. And then look to the left of the bus and trace the alignment of the roof edges. Compare stitch with your original photo. Why and how? Depending on your alignment method in hugin, first make sure you have enough good control points and taken away bad ones. Then from the drop-down menu (use other alignment options first) choose "Everything" and look whether the alignment has improved. -- Klaus with K (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made it with 7-8 photographs. I used Hugin :) Rastrojo (D•ES) 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Rastrojo, you need to use vertical guides in Hugin. The buildings are leaning all over the place, and the horizon bends up towards the right as a result. This can be easily avoided. --Dschwen (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've moved Slaunger's image note from the file page to this very page. If you don't see an image note on the image above, reload your browser's cache! Lupo 08:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Lupo. It works like a charm from my IE/XP. And I was positively surprised that the annotations can also be seen from the list (although, when thinking about that it is transcluded onto the list it is perhaps not so surprising). --Slaunger (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That was actually the hard part. The easy part was making it work here. Lupo 10:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you upload the original images, so eventual "experts" can try restitch? →AzaToth 14:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll upload them tomorrow. Rastrojo (D•ES) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image:HIV on macrophage.png, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 18:01:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION HIV-1 particles assembling at the surface of an infected macrophage

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Reconfirming the Traditional Model of HIV Particle Assembly. Gross L - uploaded by Ayacop - nominated by USERNAME -- 92.78.73.24 18:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 92.78.73.24 18:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very interesting indeed. It is probably hard to produce a better image of the same subject, although the overall image quality is not on par with what we are spoiled with showing more macroscopic objects. I am concerned though that users not knowledgeable in the field would have a hard time understanding what is going on here. I prefer if an FP tells its story by itself. For me, an FP illustrating HIV on a macrophage would probably be a drawn vector-graphics schematic instead. Had I seen the image without an explanation I could as easily have guessed it was an image of a stellar cluster captured by the Hubble telescope or something like that...Face-smile.svg --Slaunger (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- GerardM (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Econt (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per Slaunger. It is a wonderful image, but if it weren't for the file name I would have no idea what it is supposed to be. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Commons is not merely a repository for the well-known. This is a stunning image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:CTA Night.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2009 at 00:13:26
Looking north from Chicago 'L' station Adams and Wabash

Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:HK NOHAB Di 3 007 at Fushë Kosovë.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 21:05:20
Former Norwegian Di 3 locomotive, now Kosovo Railways number 007, in front of the depot at Fushë Kosovë after a day's work

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Kabelleger - uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think there are too few railway pictures in the FP list, so I'll give it a shot with this evening scenery, captured during my stay in Kosovo. -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for its composition. Nothing much to see here; I would've liked to see much more of the train and its surroundings—a shot farther away from the train. I don't like the angle and half the image is only a small portion of the train, the other half being a blurred out building. ZooFari 23:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose good composition, but low F-number makes the mosque way too blurry. --ianaré (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The blur is an intentional effect, the main subject was the NOHAB, not the mosque. --Kabelleger (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting and unique. --Aktron (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The train is excellent, and the composition is nice visually, it creates an intriguing visual connection between the train and the mosque, but then when you think about it there is no relation in fact, which is confusing and pointless. And the mosque, I don't think it should be sharp, on the contrary: I don't find it blurry enough. -- H005 (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is, in fact, a good reason why the mosque is in the picture. The NoHAB AA16 locomotives were built for Norway, Belgium, Denmark and Hungary, none of these are islamic countries. This particular locomotive spent its "regular" life span in Norway. So the fact that this locomotive can be pictured together with a mosque tells us what a huge jurney it had made. About the mosque not being blurry enough: I tend to agree, but my equipment can't do lower F-stops, sorry. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I see, there's a point in that, indeed there's even some educational value. Not strong enough to support it, but at least I changed my mind from Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- H005 (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loistokultasiipi.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2009 at 10:36:27
Scarce copper (Lycaena virgaureae) - female.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 10:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —kallerna™ 10:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Is this significantly better than let's say this image? I don't think so. Technically ok, but just another butterfly. --Dschwen (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this. This species is hard to photograph as it's colours nearly always resemble it's background. I think the two large slats of wood [if that is what they are], distracts a little, but overall, a great image. Julielangford (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Dschwen. Just another butterfly. --Karel (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose quality not so good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, plus the diagonals compete too much with subject. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others plus butterfly seems almost half-dead and has lost a lot of wing scales. -- Korall (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sirokeijunkorento (Lestes sponsa).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2009 at 10:32:46
Emerald Damselfly (Lestes sponsa).

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 10:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —kallerna™ 10:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, neither lighting nor sharpness are particularly good here. By now we've see insect shots like these (or better) a million times on this page. --Dschwen (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are a lot of them about, so it figures we will see more photographs of them. They out number mammals alone at a ratio of 200 - 1. This is great Kallerna, love the detail, expecially around the legs, so *Symbol support vote.svg Support. Julielangford (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness is a problem, the eye facing the viewer is particularly out of focus. -- JovanCormac 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose quality problem --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sitruunaperhonen (Gonepteryx rhamni).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2009 at 10:34:58
Common Brimstone (Gonepteryx rhamni).

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:DD-Schloss-gp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2009 at 21:13:03
Dresden Castle

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I added some notes on the bottom of the description page. --Kolossos (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /→Diti the penguin — 21:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:African boy transporting fodder by bicycle edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2009 at 16:04:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Tanzanian boy transporting fodder to feed cattle. Already FP on wikipedia. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent portrait. -- JovanCormac 16:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this is very nice, I like how the subject pops out in front of the blurred background. Just wished you could upload a higher resolution. --Dschwen (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC) P.S.: you used your Sigma for this, right? It is a great lens not only for Macro work! --Dschwen (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, used the Sigma 150mm. Its good for macro, portrait, architectural shots. My best investment :) --Muhammad (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Korall (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Econt (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love this, great image. It reminds me of what I saw when I visited Cameroon, people carry such huge loads by bicycle, We even saw one carrying a fridge :) Alas, I was in a bush taxi with about 9 other passengers at the time [like sardines], so getting the camera out would have proved difficult to say the least. Julielangford (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great portrait --ianaré (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Paris 16 (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —kallerna™ 09:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great -- H005 (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Excellent image --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice.   ■ MMXXtalk  19:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Wonderful image. If that was me, I would surely fall on my ass :-P Tiptoety talk 01:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - For the composition. But I find the lighting a bit dull and believe the contrast can be enhanced. Why the high ISO number? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had gone insect shooting that day and I looked up to see the boy approaching. Didn't have much time to change settings. The high ISO does not affect the quality in this image though --Muhammad (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice picture. But the retouching in the upper left part of the grass pile seems a bit too obvious. --NEUROtiker ⇌ 11:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition strongly mitigates small size and oversharpening. Lycaon (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Barack Michelle.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2009 at 10:06:31
Black and White Barack/Michelle Obama

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by vargas2040 - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Reportell -- 75.72.123.149 10:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 75.72.123.149 10:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please log in to vote. Yann (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, The file has less than 2 MP TonyBallioni (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Actually, I think in this case, there would be mitigating reasons enough (high quality free pictures of them aren't easy to come by after all, and it does have 1.6 Mpx) if it weren't for the lack of color once again. Why people rob their pictures of color before uploading is beyond me. I cannot imagine a single situation where this would add to the image, and if needed for any reason it can be done by everyone with Photoshop at any time - but it can never be undone. -- JovanCormac 12:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree with JovanCormac, its an image of great value, and it's not that small that it should be considered to be not good enough. colour would be better, but still an excellent image. Julielangford (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Okay, I'll actually take action here: The FPX says that anyone may undo the FPX by voting support, I'm willing to vote support. I'd agree with Tony that this is small, but it may be worth making an exception for this, and the above comments seem enough to justify action being taken. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in this case... Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of missing color. The Obamas are a highly relevant subject, and should be represented by a high quality, undoctored color photograph, not by an artsy product of Photoshop's sepia filter. -- JovanCormac 14:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no mitigating reasons for low size and artsy pseudo b/w (pseudo not so much as a derogatory term, but desaturated digital pictures do not even come close to real b/w photography). We have plenty of good Obama pictures. --Dschwen (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See also Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg for a nomination of an Obama photo that is arguably better in quality by an order of magnitude. It didn't get featured (8 support, 6 oppose) because of a lot of unfortunate coincidences: One oppose was without a stated reason, one because of a "copyright thing" (unfounded, as it is released under CC 3.0) and one has to be among the most stupid reasons I have ever seen for an oppose (I leave it to you to figure out which vote I'm talking about; hint: there are two strong candidates). -- JovanCormac 15:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Also as a side note, I realize the blurriness does not affect the main subject but I find it to be a bit distracting (particularly in the bottom right corner.) If a high quality picture could be found of them I would support it, but this picture isn't the one. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GerardM (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Happy to have a happy photo of the US president :)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - crop, focus, no wow: better photos of these subjects are available. Jonathunder (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Low size, no wow and I agree with TonyBallioni, the background is distracting.--Captain-tucker (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose size.--Claus (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clear FPX case (size). Lycaon (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benjamin Franklin by Joseph Siffred Duplessis.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 23:30:51
Benjamin Franklin

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Joseph Siffred Duplessis, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Yann (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Famous American statesman, scientist, diplomat, author, etc. Yann (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. Julielangford (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jonathunder (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is a copyright claim against this image. It is an appropriate candidate once the NPG thing has blown over. Thanks GerardM (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, AFAIK, the NPG didn't sue after July 20th as they threatened, but they are negociating with WMF. Yann (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Camargo graveyard.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2009 at 17:14:40
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ceroxylon quindiuense in Golden Gate Park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2009 at 23:04:10
SHORT DESCRIPTION

I do not think we have enough trees in our FP collection.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Excellent photographic quality, but I don't find subject and composition special enough for FP . -- H005 (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Disturbing branches from other tree on the left side. /Daniel78 (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While I applaud your effort in hunting down pictures of subjects that aren't normally nominated on Commons, this one lacks a real composition. Keep your nominations coming though! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I have to agree with Daniel here, the other branches are a bit distracting. That, and I do not find the image particularly interesting. Tiptoety talk 02:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Apis mellifera (by) (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 07:09:24
Apis mellifera

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely detail. Julielangford (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. No. Is this a unique subject? No! Is this the best work we have on this subject? No! I can only urge everybody to look at the existing FP File:Apis_mellifera_carnica_drone_postnatal.jpg and the gallery on its description page. --Dschwen (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't know that subjects needed to be unique to be nominations for FP. Do they? Can someone clear that up for this newbie please. Julielangford (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I personally think that this one is much better than the file you have suggested. This one is in focus throughout, where as the other one is blurred in many places where it would be better crisp. It is also a great image of honeycomb. Sorry, but this one is better IMO. Julielangford (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Disagree, and we have way better pictures of honeycombs as well. --Dschwen (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dschwen : "the once subject" is not an argue. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is correct, which is why I did not make this argument. Please reread my statement carefully. The gist is that we have plenty of much better pictures. It doesn't even matter if they are FP or no. This is not commons' best work. --Dschwen (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand what you are saying, and of course, your opinion is important to you. That's fine. As for much better pictures, finer pictures, I am not sure I really get what you mean. From where I stand, it reads like this, if someone takes an A class, beautiful photograph, that is fine in everyway it can be, should it be excluded from nomination, based on the fact that there are better ones? If that is the case, this page would be pretty redundant in no time at all. Julielangford (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • your opinion is important to you?! Uhm, what? Anyhow. To answer you question: yes, the photographer should try to take a step back from his work, compare it with other pictures we have and in a case like this not nominate it. It is a matter of courtesy and respect for other peoples work. Why should we put a star on this picture if there is better work? --Dschwen (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is a matter of courtesy and respect for other peoples work! That's exactly the point. As far as I am aware, more than one piece of work can have a star on it. Maybe it's no better than some images, but maybe its no worse, than others, and as long as it's not set in stone that there should only be one FP of any one subject, then I see nothing wrong in nominating new ones. Julielangford (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm with Dschwen here. The File:Apis_mellifera_carnica_drone_postnatal.jpg series sets the standard, and fact is that almost every picture in the series is of higher quality and better composition than the candidate. I'd rather feature one of those. This inevitably leads to the "Arthropod Issue" again, please see the vivid discussion currently going on at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Opinions_on_the_.22Arthropod_Issue.22 and, if possible, take part in it. -- JovanCormac 08:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of the "series" only this one has as good composition as nominated photo, and it doesn't have as good background. —kallerna™ 13:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Me like --Korall (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like it. Shure, to see part of a bee with such an enlargement is something spectacular and the surface of the wings is interesting. But the picture is sharpened too much, the light is a bit harsh. The bee doesn't stand out well from the distracting background, an ugly dark honeycomb with damaged cells that must have been outside a healthy colony during the last time. The curved posture of the bee is disadvantageous. The abdomen and the head cannot be seen well, especially the mouthparts and the antennae. There are some intestesting details, but the whole is not very good. --wau > 21:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Julielangford. --Lošmi (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Chalcolestes viridis (by).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 18:05:25
Chalcolestes viridis

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

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

Chalcolestes viridis

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:I'll Miss You Dad by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 16:11:27
I'll miss you Dad

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Technical Sergeant Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr., USAF - uploaded by Smokizzy - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This image is one of the most moving I've come across in my journeys through the huge library that is Commons. The emotionally charged subject and multiple interpretations of the image in my opinion excuse the (perhaps sub-optimal) crop. This image has been nominated previously and failed by the slimmest of margins (1 vote in it!).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This picture should be properly categorized as a propaganda image, for it is blatantly obvious that that's precisely what it is. I consider it certain that this picture is staged, and that disgusts rather than moves me, to be honest. The label ("I'll Miss You Dad") does the rest. I cannot find any reason for opposing it in our guidelines, so I will simply abstain from voting, but I am sure that future generations of Commoners will find that it belongs with File:AntiJapanesePropagandaTakeDayOff.gif, rather than with File:Dodd daughter.jpg. -- JovanCormac 16:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btw. I foresee that this will once again be a controversial nomination with many comments, just like the first one... -- JovanCormac 16:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope you don't think the less of me for nominating it Jovan, but believe me, I'm not trying to make a point in favour of, or against the US, warfare, or whatever else one happens to see in this image. To me, the sheer range of reactions and emotions make this picture perfect for FP status; it inspires something in people, whether that reaction is good or bad is up to the viewer. How many featured pictures have we seen pass through this page? 4000? 5000? How many of those have inspired you to write a full paragraph in response? Isn't that what a picture is meant to be? Worth a thousand words? Not arguing with you, merely explaining what I think makes this picture stand out. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not at all thinking less of you. And you are right about this being one of the images on FPC which has excited me most, albeit in a negative sense. This picture does elicit strong emotions in everyone: Either compassion for the little girl, or disgust of her being used in war propaganda. And propaganda pictures can be featured, of course, provided that they are of excellent quality, which this one is. The real problem with this photo is that it is a propaganda picture of our times, and its likes are still seeing widespread use. Featuring it might stain our reputation in the eyes of some people, as we are not clearly distancing ourselves from it; in fact, we cannot, since whether the image actually is propaganda may be a point of disagreement. When we feature, say, Soviet propaganda pictures, or those from WWII, no one can seriously believe that we do it for any other reason than their historical value. This is not the case here, as this picture isn't history yet. It is for this reason, and because of the picture's highly ambiguous nature, that our "always on"-policy of NPOV is insufficient here. Simply featuring this picture, without an explicit inscription of neutrality about its contents, falls just short of a political statement. However, and this is the crux, putting it in the "Propaganda" category is a political statement as well! IMO, this picture is simply too controversial to be displayed in our "showcase", Featured Pictures. -- JovanCormac 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Making something a featured picture is not making a political statement, it is simply saying that the image meets certain artistic and technical standards. I would gladly support an image like this one of a Lebanese women crying after her vilage had been bombed by the Israelis (if it were of good enough quality), even though it could easily be used as a propaganda image. When it comes to images NPOV is not refusing to feature images that contain a certain sentiment, it is being willing to allow images from both sides to be featured if they meet the criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right, it doesn't. Still can't help feeling the way I do, though... -- JovanCormac 10:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per JovanCormac, but oppose due to distracting person in background. Julielangford (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Two+two=4 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - crop. Jonathunder (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It may be staged, but life is a big theater, so... Yann (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per my reasoning above. Also I find nothing wrong with the quality. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks staged, and fake. This is certainly a propaganda image. And that should be stated. This can be featured only as obvious example of US army propaganda. If this appear on main page, that has to be mention in the caption. "US military propaganda image called I'll miss you dad: Child holds on tight to her dad's leg while saying goodbye to him. Her father deployed to Southwest Asia for six months in support of OEF and OIF." --Lošmi (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agreed with Jovan and Julielangford --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lošmi. --AM (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor framing, distracting background. Would be more inclined to support if not taken by a pro. --ianaré (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jovan. Cacophony (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Commons does not have a NPOV policy, politics should not matter in this discussion. I agree with Sarcastic ShockwaveLover, this image will generate a reaction one way or the other exactly what a FP should. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Julielangford, ianaré and other opposers. -- MJJR (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As last time. Lycaon (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Tiptoety talk 00:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Ks0stm (T•C) 02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per ianaré. —kallerna™ 09:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality. --Karel (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 11 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lithodes.santolla.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 12:45:05
Southern King Crab

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Butterfly voyages - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfect --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You don't see that animal every day - in fact, I've never seen it before. -- JovanCormac 15:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have never seen it either, in fact, until I saw comment(JovanCormac), I thought it was a starfish and didn't examine closer. Now I have, and I fully support. Julielangford (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great quality, but the crab is probably dead. The King crabs do not come to shore usually.--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone tell me how big it is? That isn't mentioned in the image description, nor in the WP article. -- JovanCormac 17:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd love to know myself, but sadly Wiki is the only site my office doesn't block. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just found something via Google: 19 cm carapace length (I guess that's just the body), 8 kg weight. -- JovanCormac 20:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't care whether the crab is dead or not, its a great image. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image gives a false impression of a crab photographed in its natural habitat. The fact that the crab is dead should be added to the description of the image.--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I've added a note to the description. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info the mean objective of this picture is scientific that is why I applied it to be evaluated by the people like a valued image because it's unique not only in Commons... Here (Features pictures) Dead or alive this King crab is not the issue. The subjet is if this picture is featured or not. There are many other scientific pictures with dead animals, aren't there ? My objective is to offer scientists the possibilty to see in details this animal. Otherwise, if this animal is under water it can not easily be seen in details. Precision : the color of this animal is clear and real, its size is about 60 cm in total. More precision in fr:wp. In fact, it is not its natural habitat, but it is better there on shore than on a dish at restaurant without its shell !!!--Butterfly voyages (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot agree that "it is better there on shore than on a dish". If it were "on a dish" there would not have been any doubts the crab is dead. The nominated image tries to pretend that the crab is alive, which is a false information for encyclopedia. I strongly believe that the info that the crab is a dead one should be added to the description of the image.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni => thanks and I changed it into french too ; @Two+two => I apologise for the phrase "...on the dish" but it was meant to be a joke (this crab is very very very delicious !!!!!). Anyway, the biologists agree with this picture and of course they are well aware the animal is dead. At the beginning I didn't know whether to specify this in the description or not. Now I hope you change your vote.--Butterfly voyages (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Butterfly voyages (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  19:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Two+two=4 . For 'scientific purposes' a neutral background would have done de job much better. Lycaon (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Welcome back Lycaon. You missed one. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ Lycaon. Scientists have been working with this pictures for more than a year... no only on Commons ! Wheter there is a neutral background or not it is not the problem for them and I don't understand your argument here but I could understand your vote with only the criterias of features images. Thanks--Butterfly voyages (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that I oppose for FP does not mean it is a bad picture for illustrating the species. I would support for VI if all criteria are met. Lycaon (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just a crab.--Claus (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info @ Claus : This" just " crab is a Southern King Crab (Lithodes santolla) --Butterfly voyages (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 10:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support difficult to get a better picture --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Well, maybe this crab, or the place where it was found found, are interesting scientifically. But the image is not good enough by itself to be featured. The worse for me is the shooting position -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marina - Nuits de Hautecombe 2008 - 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 19:53:08
Marina, singer and guitarist, Hautecombe Nights, 2008.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit below 2 Mpx, but I feel it is worth it. Yann (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Seems fine but a bit blurry. --Aktron (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The facial expression of the singer seem a bit unfortunate, and the slightly too low resolution. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Have to agree with Daniel, the facial expression is a put off. Also, the quality of the image around the mic stand is not the best. Tiptoety talk 00:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monkey eating.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 09:00:19
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture, btw. the primate appears to have a badly swollen and discolored right eye, probably caused by a disease. Identifying that disease could add further value to the picture. -- JovanCormac 09:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enthusiastic Symbol support vote.svg Support A wonderful image of the crab eating macaque. Visible full cheek pouches and that typical alert expression that macaques have. The eye problem is probably macular degeneration, a retinal defect that usually effects adults. Julielangford (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • MD doesn't explain the swelling, though, which appears to be quite severe. -- JovanCormac 11:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • not always I agree, but the retina can become detached with the condition, which would result in swelling. Julielangford (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I didn't know that. That must be it, then. -- JovanCormac 12:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it could be, but it could be something else too :) This is a very interesting image, sparks up a thirst to find out more. Julielangford (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Korall (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  19:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Tiptoety talk 00:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - A shame that the whole monkey is not shown and the dull flash light but a great image anyway (I would give it a 'weak support' in en:FPC) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Myrmecia forficata.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 12:55:25
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Münchhausen-AWille.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 15:51:44
Baron Münchhausen overriding a cannon-ball

  • Whoever did it, I change my vote to Symbol support vote.svg Support, even though there is still some part of the border visible on the bottom right. -- JovanCormac 19:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. I've made one more shot. Is it possible to delete previous versions to save some area? --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That's funny, I just got done watching Terry Gilliam's adaptation of the story, and can remember the scene in the movie shown by this image. --ianaré (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much nicer now without the border. Julielangford (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media

File:Port Vell, Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 14:20:36
Port Vell, Barcelona, Spain

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Already FP in en:w and es:w. Nice view of this port in Barcelona. -- Kadellar (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image!--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a good image. The only thing that bothers me are the brightness undulations in the sky. That should be avoidable. --Dschwen (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely. I would like to see a little more of the sky [just a tiny bit more], but it's still very good. Julielangford (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nothing extraordinary, but quality is too high to not support. -- JovanCormac 08:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose don´t like the different brightnesses in the sky --Andreas 06 (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose badly stitched (per Andreas 06) --Avala (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I don't think the brightness difference is a significant problem. --Aqwis (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support So good, so complicated, and so detailed, and taken under difficult conditions; I can't let some hardly noticeable brightness variations in the sky stop me from supporting. Maedin\talk 09:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Dschwen, photo uploaded 2009 only, hence no state of the art stitching. Nice photo, but brightness variations in the sky are no longer state of the art in stitching. -- Klaus with K (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not bad, but not so good.--Claus (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- User:Docu at 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Avala -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto Covo August 2009-4a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 19:43:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Death to the arthropods, long live the artsy photos! The beach of Cerca Nova in Porto Covo, Portugal, at the end of the day. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The rocks in the foreground are not sharp enough in my opinion, the child looks like his hands are missing, the colors are too dull for my taste.--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Two+Two -- TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Yiyi (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siilipentu kallerna.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2009 at 14:42:20
Juvenile West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus).

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spelterini Pyramids.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 09:55:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Eduard Spelterini - uploaded by Lupo - nominated by JovanCormac 09:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A very early (1904) aerial photograph of the pyramids in Giza, taken from a balloon by Eduard Spelterini. Very detailed given the age, and of high historical value. One can clearly see that the pyramids site looks different from today, and that the edge of the city of Cairo is much further away from it. -- JovanCormac 09:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 09:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is great. Julielangford (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oooh... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Historic document. Very nice! --AM (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Toruń - Old Town by night 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 20:54:33
Toruń Old Town by night.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestath -- Lestat (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lestat (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp enough --ianaré (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per ianaré. -- JovanCormac 06:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above, also proportion. Horizon too central. Julielangford (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness is an issue here indeed. But the (invisible) horizon is not a problem IMO. The main subject is the row of buildings and their reflection in the water; and that's not too centered! -- MJJR (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:W.E.F. Britten - Alfred, Lord Tennyson - St. Simeon Stylites.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2009 at 07:26:06
St. Simeon Stylites

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by W.E.F. Britten (after the poem by Tennyson) - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Always for art of this quality. -- JovanCormac 08:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support also I've cropped the image to show only the picture, not the page that it was on, if anyone has any issues with this please feel free to revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't normally like cropping, but I think it works well in this case. I threw up a note saying a less-cropped version's available in the file history, and think we can leave it at that. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the crop. Julielangford (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A strong image. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:ZB Interregio mit HGe 101 bei Niederried.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 11:50:07
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A narrow gauge Zentralbahn Interregio train following the Brienzersee in Zentral Switzerland, pulled by a rack-and-adhesion locomotive HGe 101. The town in the back is Brienz. -- Kabelleger (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is it my eyes, or is there a slight tilt on this? Julielangford (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment At least the catenary masts are as vertical as they can be... (just compare them to the edge of your screen) --Kabelleger (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the answer. I see it straight now - must have been my early morning eyes playing up :) Julielangford (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avala (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition is really good. Saturation is on the high side, though. I couldn't find a tilt, probably an optical illusion. -- JovanCormac 14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, very good! --Aqwis (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We applaud all good train pictures! -- MJJR (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good composition. --ianaré (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MartinD (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you add the location of this picture? Ymaup (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ymaup (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice.   ■ MMXXtalk  19:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This photo makes me want to travel there very badly. What a lovely place. Tiptoety talk 02:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Why the strong downsampling? Only 28% of the original image seems to be left over! Lycaon (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With my current lens and camera you won't see more details when viewing it 1:1, the only thing that would change is that it would be bigger and slightly soft. Plus, it's easier to get rid of the sensor noise after having it scaled down a bit. So overall this version is nicer to look at and it does not really have less details. But I can create a 1:1 version if you feel it's worth it. --Kabelleger (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commons is not only for viewing images on a screen, but also for providing high quality printing material. A 1:1 version would be appreciated. Composition is very good , BTW. Lycaon (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I replaced the image by a 1:1 version. --Kabelleger (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Muybridge race horse animated.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 10:29:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Seattle Center as night falls.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 12:03:50
Seattle Center as night falls

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jeffery Hayes - uploaded and nominated by Originalwana (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As Nominator Originalwana (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really love the colour and lighting here. Julielangford (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The visual appeal doesn't make up for the big focus problems and the distracting halos. -- JovanCormac 13:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice atmosphere and colors, but the overall relatively modest image detail level and the halos leads me to oppose. The composition is good, but it does not knock me of the chair either. --Slaunger (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – I feel the composition is mediocre. The background seems over-accentuated; too much focus on sky and mountains. It's becoming of a confused subject, especially given the title. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I like the sky - Huib talk 10:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Permission received via OTRS. Yann (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks very pleasant. --Lošmi (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jovan. Cacophony (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Anonymous Dissident --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support can't see a problem with lack of detail. Definitely a wow! pic. -- H005 (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graugans Anser Anser.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 23:29:12
A grey goose (anser anser, Graugans)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by H005 - uploaded by H005 - nominated by H005 -- H005 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H005 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this is supposed to have "wow"? --Dschwen (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, it has. But for this is a matter of personal taste, it's hardly arguable. -- H005 (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which makes it sort of a crappy criterion for FPs... Anyhow, it is a nice shot, good use of DOF. --Dschwen (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Holds lots of wow for me, based on subject matter. It's not just about great photography [which I think this is], the subject, EV etc, should also be taken into consideration, going by the guidelines above. This important fact is often getting lost here on times, and is becoming to look more like a photography competition each time I look. I really like what I find here on commons, based on value, not quality and technical merit all the time. Julielangford (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support gorgeous shot. Lovely detail and crisp. Julielangford (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is too centered, some noise in backgroung and foreground, no wow. The head is not very sharp in my opinion. By the way I got an impression that the image was retouched. Was it?--Two+two=4 (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The head as center of attention follows the rule of thirds. --Dschwen (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depends on what you define as "retouched", I think I added some light in post-processing, not much though, and maybe also a bit of contrast, I don't recall it entirely, I definitely didn't remove any objects or applied manipulations only to certain parts of the image or those kind of things, if that is what you mean. So really only minor "darkroom" operations that go without saying on almost any picture nominated here.
As for the centering, as Dschwen says, the head is not centered, and moreover I don't think that rule of thirds should be applied to everything in a "no questions asked" manner, if there's nothing else on the image but the object and a single homogenous background I believe it would make it worse. Imagine the duck centered to where now the head is, I do not think that would be an improvement. -- H005 (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I was not at all implying the RoT should be applied without switching your brain on ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've not even been inclined to think you were. :-) -- H005 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, featured[edit]

A grey goose

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Denoised -- Pro2 (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pro2 (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Julielangford (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question H005, was the image background and/or foreground retouched manually except denoising?--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, see above. -- H005 (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The alternative looks better. --Two+two=4 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question As everyone agrees that the edit is better, shouldn't we upload it as a new version of the original image rather than keeping two separate images? -- H005 (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info As no one opposed I have done so and will request deletion of the now duplicate File:Graugans Anser Anser new.jpg. -- H005 (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

/FPCBot (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foggy morning at Twin Peaks.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 16:36:41
Foggy morning in San Francisco

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love the dreamy feel to this. Great pano work with lovely stitching. I especially love the effect the mist has on the bridge. Julielangford (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Even for an early morning picture I think it's still way too dark. A little action with the curves and I might support. --Calibas (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded one.--Two+two=4 (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not only early morning it was a foggy morning as well. The fog is seen in some places at the image but it was everywhere.--Two+two=4 (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful.--Luxembourg (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The objects in the foreground appear cut off, contrast is too low, and resolution is bordering on too low as well for a panorama. -- JovanCormac 17:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Size is too low, but big wow prevails. --Karel (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Agree with Karelj. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per JovanCormac. —kallerna™ 08:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As others opponents. -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice atmosphere. --Lošmi (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured[edit]

Foggy morning in San Francisco 

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

/FPCBot (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rollout of STS-128.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 01:45:53


Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noise reduced version, featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reduced image noise with Neat Image, resulting in this version. -- JovanCormac 06:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Denoised version. -- JovanCormac 06:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment At the moment, both versions have aspects that I like. I like the reduced noise version, but the dramatic depth of the sky is more prominent on the original. Julielangford (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why don't you support them both? :) --Lošmi (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could? I didn't know that, but wouldn't it be the same if I did nothing? The outcome wouldn't make much difference, if I cast the same vote on each. Julielangford (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes you can. It wouldn't make much difference in choosing which one will be featured (the one which has more support votes minus oppose). But it makes a difference in one of these getting FP status at all. --Lošmi (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JovanCormac's edit. prefer it slightly to original. Julielangford (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Normally I can't tell much difference between noise reduced versions and the original, but in this case I agree with Julie in that the original captures the skys depth better, either way I hope one of these pictures makes it in (obviously ;-) ) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this version --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Theklan (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  19:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Didn't anyone notice the tilt? Otherwise good, I'll support it when the tilt is fixed. -- H005 (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Iamthestig (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —Andrei S. Talk 12:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting foreground. —kallerna™ 09:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --FriedC (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose with conditionalSymbol support vote.svg Support if the tilt is fixed per H005. --Korall (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 13:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

/FPCBot (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The @cajugband fest.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 00:23:42
Jug band 

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or, not featured[edit]

Jug band

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose both. Both candidates unfortunately are way too dark, which is only highlighted by the dark background. Looking at the face of the man standing on the right, one can also see a lack of sharpness. -- JovanCormac 07:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before nominating my images I compared the quality of my images to the quality of few similar FPs File:Freaky Age 1 Luc Viatour.jpg File:Harri Stojka 30.08.2008c.jpg File:Metalmania 2007 TYR Terji Skibenas 001.jpg and came to conclusion that the quality of my images is not worse at the very least. Besides the size of my image is bigger and it is the only image that shows a jug band. --Two+two=4 (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I prefer the tight crop file above, out of the two, but it is a little dark. Perhaps a levels adjustment would correct that a little. Julielangford (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose both per Jovan. Also as a general rule, I like to see the subjects' faces whenever possible, something that is extremely hard to do in these pictures because they are either looking down or the camera is a bit too far away. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose both - It lacks sharpness, and the resolution appears to be a bit low...for me at least. Tiptoety talk 01:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

/FPCBot (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willem van Oranje.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2009 at 23:16:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

William the Silent statue
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Iamthestig -- Iamthestig (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Iamthestig (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question what are the white things in his head and shoulders? I found an image. There's none. --Two+two=4 (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are metal pins to prevent the pidgeons to sit on the statue. I guess they were installed recently Iamthestig (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special--Claus (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ordinary snapshot of no special high photographic value, the photographer couldn't even bother not to click in rush and therefore take the whole subject within this photo (this way we don't even see a part of the monument) --Avala (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Per the above statements, it is nothing special along with the fact the bottom part of the statue has been cut off. Tiptoety talk 00:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Avala and Tiptoety. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cabo da Roca2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2009 at 13:33:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cabo da Roca, Portugal, the most western point in the continental Europe.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Yiyi - uploaded by Yiyi - nominated by Yiyi -- Yiyi (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yiyi (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Not very well balanced -Theklan (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Severe overexposure in the right top. -- Korall (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Korall. -- JovanCormac 10:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above, quality issues. --S23678 (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nepal - Sagamartha Trek - 057 - chorten silhouetted by Lhotse & Everest.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2009 at 12:20:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nepal - Sagamartha Trek - 057 - chorten silhouetted by Lhotse & Everest
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by mckaysavage - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lê (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice location, but overall quality is poor: Sky is grainy/noisy, objects are blurry and foreground is very dark. -- JovanCormac 16:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jovan. The images you're nominating are getting better though. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is excellent, but the quality is too low. --S23678 (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cloud shadows on the sea.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2009 at 10:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cloud shadows on the sea
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Joi - uploaded by Lê| - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lê (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a glare in the upper right corner. It should be retouched or cropped away (resolution is high enough for that). The picture in general is nice, though. -- JovanCormac 11:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose one airplane shot in a million. Glare. No point in fudging with this, there are plenty better ones. --Dschwen (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose one out of many --Avala (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jackson County, Alabama tornado damage.JPG, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2009 at 04:51:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Jackson County, Alabama tornado damage.JPG
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NOAA National Weather Service Huntsville, Alabama - originally uploaded by JForget at en-wikipedia; transferred to Commons by Superm401 - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm (T•C) 04:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ks0stm (T•C) 04:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose low resolution, not of extraordinary quality --NEUROtiker ⇌ 09:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bordering on FPX. Resolution is far too low. -- JovanCormac 11:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Ks0stm and Cormac. --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per me, the nominator? I laugh... Ks0stm (T•C) 02:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: image size is 1.2 megapixels, below the 2 Mpx lower limit. →Diti the penguin — 13:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Pictogram voting delete.svg ...I see fluffy white stuff...Ks0stm (T•C) 18:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 13:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tehran Sunset.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2009 at 03:09:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Hamed Saber - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lê (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Very small, 946 × 700 pixels 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.

--Claus (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mountaintop Lupin overlooking Raspberry Strait, Alaska 2009 114.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2009 at 20:15:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lupin cover the mountaintops of the Kodiak Archipelago
I am the creator and uploader, I must have forgotten to add a tag, thanks for noting. I have now added the copyright tag. NancyHeise@aol.com (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I sent her an email telling her to add a source and a license to the image and pointing her to various help pages. --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the email, I have since added the copyright tag releasing to public domain, thanks! NancyHeise@aol.com (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Confusing composition, failed focus on the subject and poor quality (see the background). Why this exposure choice? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I thought the composition was breathtakinly wonderful, but, alas, I am my own most sympathetic critic! :p NancyHeise@aol.com (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wild purple Iris on the Kodiak Archipelago, Alaska 2009 200.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2009 at 18:49:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A field of wild purple iris' on the Kodiak Archipelago
I think the glare makes the picture all the more wonderful but thanks for not being as outright oppositional as the guy who voted just above you! : ) NancyHeise@aol.com (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I too think the glare is a bit distracting and the background blur seem a bit noisy, but it's a very beautiful image. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate your comments. I took a look at the present list of featured pictures of flowers and I guess I have a different view of what makes a good picture. Like Mozart, I like busy, however, the king thought his music had "too many notes". NancyHeise@aol.com (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture is beautiful, and the flower in the foreground gives it a special touch and a great composition. But the glare mentioned above is a show stopper. I really hope that someone will step in and photoshop it away! -- JovanCormac 11:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I did not know that there was such aversion to glare in photos on this page. I rather liked the glare - its the sun voicing its approval of the flower's beauty! NancyHeise@aol.com (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trăng tròn trên City Bown.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2009 at 12:33:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: there's absolutely no details 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.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You should have a look at previous successful nominations in order to have an idea of the expected image quality. Upsampling is not a solution to a low resolution. --S23678 (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This candidate was also moved to the same name as the previous nomination, which messes up the logs. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sir Thomas Munro, 1st Baronet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2009 at 09:51:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

English: Sir Thomas Munro, 1st Baronet, original author is Sir Martin Archer Shee. The image was retouched by Sanferd Rodrigues
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Very small. 0,84 Megapixels only George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. 
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spring break 08-11.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2009 at 00:47:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by aNH Đinh - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lê (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very poor quality.--Two+two=4 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Absolutely terrible quality, you can see the window's frame, and the reflection of the hotel room in the glass TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. 
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Đi bão 28 tháng 12.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2009 at 23:44:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Anh Đinh - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lê (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My God!--Claus (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and this is coming from the guy who contested the FPX of the last one! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Terrible quality, way too dark. -- JovanCormac 14:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Forgrumd too dark, buildings in background seem hidden by some kind of mist and the people ar all blurry. -- Korall (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too dark and blurry. Tiptoety talk 00:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image suffers from low quality, high noise, confusing composition, tilt, blurriness, bad lighting... 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.

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rocca Malatestiana Cesena 2006 pano.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2009 at 22:17:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Marcok -- Marcok (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Marcok (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice location and composition, but the picture simply isn't sharp enough to be Featured IMO. -- JovanCormac 10:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Las Vegas Strip2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 12:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Las Vegas Strip
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded by WiNG - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lê (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Bad quality, JPG artifacts, low size. Why is this even considered?! --Dschwen (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack, Dschwen. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Dschwen. A staggering four of your recent nominations have been FPXed, and most of the other ones have received harsh opposition. I strongly suggest that you look at examples of successful nominations before submitting further ones, which can be frustrating when they are struck down quickly (the log is a good place to start; so is the Featured Picture library, of course). -- JovanCormac 14:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor image quality. Tiptoety talk 00:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Gustave Dore Vase in Golden Gate Park.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 03:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background is distracting and the subject is slightly off-center. I would suggest a more developed composition, maybe using the rule of thirds to create a more appealing scene. --S23678 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Description needs information of the creator of the monument. --QWerk (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does have it in both the file's name and the file's description.--Two+two=4 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The black rectangle in the bottom right corner is really ugly. -- JovanCormac 06:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The monument is quite sharp but the background (strange structures, bin, non-interesting trees) spoils the photo. --Diacritica (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got the message, and agree about background. @S23678, I do not think the rule of thirds will work here. The idea was to show details of the vase. The image was made out of 12 images.To show the details of the vase in "the rule of thirds" means to create even much more complex panorama and it will be the task for Diliff, not for me Face-smile.svg.@Diacritica, I know there are some ways to remove backgrounds but I am not sure how to do it. (I only know how to add fog digitally Face-smile.svg). I will ask around what could be done with the background, and for now Pictogram voting delete.svg 
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 13:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:El Castillo-posterior.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 22:51:47 (UTC)
en: Rear view of "Museo El Castillo" (The Castle Museum), where lived the Echavarría family. Southeast of Medellin.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by XalD - uploaded by XalD - nominated by XalD -- ~~×α£đ~~es 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ~~×α£đ~~es 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality, interesting building, but not extraordinary enough for FP. There's too much standing and lying around. -- H005 (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per H005. -- JovanCormac 14:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Feldkreuz Hochtannbergpass 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 14:40:13
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wayside crucifix


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flies on Leucanthemum vulgare.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 16:50:44
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Minute black scavenger flies (Scatopsidae) on oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare).


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Microtus oeconomus teeth.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 18:45:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

M/1 fossil teeth of a Microtus oeconomus (Tundra Vole) from Kiputz, Gipuzkoa, Basque Country.
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe you won't know but the unique way of identifying a Microtus fossil species is by the top shape of the M/1 tooth. It's to say the depth of the teeth it's not important in this image, but the top shape must be perfectly focused. -Theklan (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose just no "wow" here for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The perspective is a bit funky, making it hard to tell what it even is. Tiptoety talk 02:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, I also think that the large purple area below the tooth with the black shape in it is distracting from the actual subject. As its educational value seems to be quite high, you could nominate this for Valued Image status, though. -- JovanCormac 10:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spring St Station.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 13:57:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Anh Dinh - uploaded by Magicknight94 - nominated by Magicknight94 -- Lê (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lê (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Very bad quality. Nothing is sharp. Strong pixelization all over the image.--Two+two=4 (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak Support the quality is not terrible, and it certainly shouldn't be FPXed. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this picture, I just feel that the voting should be allowed to continue. -- TonyBallioni (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand why you opposed few of my images Face-smile.svg--Two+two=4 (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, most (if not all) of your pictures are of better quality than this, but most of the ones I've voted on are also of human subjects, which I have higher standards for. I probably would have been neutral on this image if it weren't for the FPX, its just there is something I find intriguing about this image, and I believe that it deserves a vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The 16x16 light/dark blocks are very distracting - almost looks like a corrupt JPEG. Apart from that, there are JPEG artifacts everywhere and what I assume are bits of dust (though it's hard to be sure with that much compression). Time3000 (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I expect a lot more quality from a picture taken in 2009. -- Korall (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 16:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You can't be serious, looks like a snapshot from a 1980's CCTV. -- H005 (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very bad quality, very blurry! -- Ymaup (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of quality. A bit too artsy for my taste as well. -- JovanCormac 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tamias striatus CT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 17:10:16
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eastern Chipmunk
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cephas (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love this. Great detail and depth. Excellent expression, and such cute little feet :) Julielangford (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wonderfull! =) --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Very big Support! --kaʁstn 12:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral not quite as enthusiastic because of insufficient sharpness (nose and some areas of the fur) and the crop (too wide on the left and right). If the latter was fixed, I'd support it. -- H005 (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —Andrei S. Talk 12:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very pretty! -- Yiyi (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Claus (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not suitable as a species illustration because only the head is shown, but lots of character and good quality. -- JovanCormac 14:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Careful not to limit the use of pictures exclusively for scientific/descriptive purposes. They can be useful for many other things. --Cephas (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I totally agree, and you will notice that I did support the nomination :-) -- JovanCormac 10:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cute, but the nose is out of focus and I would have preferred the whole body shown. ZooFari 04:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Tiptoety talk 04:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --D-Kuru (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Umayyad Mosquee panoramic.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 18:30:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Umayyad Mosque, Damascus, Syria. 180º panorama made with photostiching technology.


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Theklan - uploaded by User:Theklan - nominated by User:Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Theklan (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, leaning towards support. Very impressive panorama, but the quality isn't quite perfect at full resolution: I notice a couple of white spots (presumably gaps in the stitching), and the shadowed area on the right is quite noisy. I'll add some image notes to this page to point them out. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality --kaʁstn 12:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per IK - the quality just isn't there. Compared with other architectural featured panoramas, it's noisy, lacking detail, and oversharpened. Time3000 (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Ilmari Karonen --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: very nice subject, but bad quality. -- Yiyi (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, pity because FP is quite light on mosques. -- JovanCormac 14:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others --Claus (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:W.E.F. Britten - Alfred, Lord Tennyson - Lady of Shalott.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 14:10:24
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by W.E.F. Britten - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dreamy.--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer those drawings without white borders, but the quality leaves nothing to be desired. -- JovanCormac 14:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I too prefer borderless images /Daniel78 (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Again, as with the other one, I cropped the original paper off and added a note on the description, if anyone has objections please feel free to revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Might support the bordered version (this is not a photograph). Lycaon (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Waves July 2009-5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 21:55:54
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Back to aesthetics and minimalism: exercise on DOF. The beach of Cerca Nova at low tide, Porto Covo, Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To me its just a lot of wet sand. This picture just does not capture my attention. -- Korall (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is rather noisy with a few dust spots.--Two+two=4 (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Some very vague dust spots indeed, which could easily be removed. The 'noise' in the sky is only visible on a blow up of 200% or more; oppose for that reason is not really fair, as it is not the purpose of the images on Commons to be used with such an enlargement. Nice but rather minimalist composition. -- MJJR (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly see the noise in the full resolution. I did not blow the image up to 200%. Of course the noise could be cleared as well as the dust spots could but I do not find the rocks in the background are sharp enough either.--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yiyi (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not special enough. I appreciate the technical aspects of the picture, but to most people this will be, as Korall stated, "just a lot of wet sand". -- JovanCormac 14:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Palazzo at night 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 22:44:25
The Palazzo at night 2.JPG

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crissy Field beach and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 16:14:24
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crissy Field beach
The stitching errors were corrected thanks to Slaunger. The color balance was corrected. The info about the fog was added to the description of the image.
It is correct that I have pointed out some errors. I do not agree though that they have been fixed. I have marked one pretty severe stitching error in the moving waves on the file page as an annotation. Remember to clear your cache, if you have not used annotations before. I am by the way wondering how come I cannot make local annotations on this nom subpage. Did you make the new subpage as a copy&paste of the original nom, or did you use the new revised nomination process, where annotation "magic" is added to the nomination page?--Slaunger (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reason is that this nomination subpage was not created using template {{FPCnom/Basic}} but manually. I've fixed that manually and moved your nomination-related notes to this nomination page. Lupo 08:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image was nominated before. That's why I created the nomination with a new name. I was not sure how to do it. Sorry if I have done something wrong. It was not in purpose.--Two+two=4 (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have acted in good faith and it is no big deal. It is a mess to renominate an image and you have to switch to manual when that happens. --Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I will never learn how do it as well as I will never learn how to find stitching errors Face-smile.svg--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason please?--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is great now. Julielangford (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 12:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposechanged my vote, see below Massive stitching errors on the left (the blue thing near the boarder) and in the waves! In the sea there is also a diagonal edge over the whole picture. It looks like a fake... --Leviathan (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no stitching error on "the blue thing near the boarder". The images were not stitched even close to that place. The images were stitched only horizontally. "Diagonal edge" in the sea is absolutely natural.--Two+two=4 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here you can see what I talk about! --Leviathan (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to help me out. I've corrected some of the problems you mentioned and I cannot see the others. I am sorry but maybe you could work with my latest version and mark the errors you see with a red mark and uplad the full resolution that I would be able to see the errors. For example I am not sure what problems you see in your third insert. If you're talking about the white things in the background these are only saleboats and some structures in the fog and not the waves. --Two+two=4 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Prblem! I look at the new version and I will post a marked version tomorrow. Greetings, Leviathan (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here (don`t forget to clear the cache) is the new version with marked errors. Its, again, the blue thing near the boarder and the light buoy on the right looks like "cut off" in my eyes. The rest is OK imho! Greets Leviathan (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I am sure these are no errors. They both are too close to the borders. There was no stitching done there. I'll try to take a close up of the buoy today and upload the image. I will let you know. Cheers.--Two+two=4 (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
now Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, to good to oppose, but I´m not 100% happy with it. (per Slaunger) Greets, Leviathan (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeModified my vote, see below. --Slaunger (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC) How would you control in Hugin that images are only stitched horizontally? I do not agree that the diagonal edge is the sea is natural. It looks like a very typical example of the kind of stitching error you can get in Hugin when stitching over moving sea waves. --Slaunger (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say that I worked with a single row of the images. I do not know how Hugin could make a stitching error all over the image.--Two+two=4 (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK. My pioint is that recent versions of Hugin tries to make seams between images by traversing a path in the overlap betwen images, where the difference between the two images is minimal. In this manner conflicts between two images caused by a moving object placed differently on two neighboring images can be avoided if the image overlap is sufficiently large (the seam path avoids selects one of them for inclsusion). That means the seams are not always vertical even on a horizontal strip of images. And when there are large differences as with moving waves bwteen images, there is no way it can find a good path, and you get these odd looking edges between areas taken at different moments in time. It is almost impossible to do right with the kind of wave crests you have there unless you do extensive cloning afterwards, using, e.g., individual projected image files from Hugin as selective clone masks. It can be done though, see File:Porto Covo pano April 2009-4.jpg but that also required a lot of cloning and the detailed knowledge of the creator, who is a physical oceanographer. --Slaunger (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
I did more work in the areas you pointed out (Thanks). I hope that it is OK now and even a physical oceanographer will not find any problems with the waves now.Face-smile.svg--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The stitching problems are less severe than before, but they are still quite prominent in the two problem areas I have marked. They do not spoil the entire photo anymore, though. Thus my change to a neutral vote. --Slaunger (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The fog looks so unlifelike, but good quality --kaʁstn 13:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a normal fog for San Francisco. Have you read the Info about the fog I added to the image description?--Two+two=4 (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lots of details to annotate. -- User:Docu at 14:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Special image and interesting discussion. Ultimately it's FP worthy IMO. -- MJJR (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Claus (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image indeed --Herby talk thyme 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture, rare view. And yay to the annotation tool! -- JovanCormac 14:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An interesting and quality image, who's creator has worked long and hard to fix any errors. It`s a very detailed scene and it would be rude to oppose it after so much work. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Interesting picture but dull composition, with a centered horizon and poorly placed persons in the foreground -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as kallerna. Lycaon (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Seagulls Porto Covo July 2009-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 23:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Pas de deux with seagulls at the end of the afternoon. Porto Covo, Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, it's a very nice picture, but with a very bad crop. A bit more to the right, then I would support. --kaʁstn 12:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Carschten -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with Carschten --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with above, and it's a shame the bird on the right isn't entirely in focus. Iamthestig (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yiyi (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Carschten. -- JovanCormac 10:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gold-crystals.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2009 at 20:48:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gold crystals, synthetic made
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good, but why the scale is green? —kallerna™ 21:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • because very thin gold foil has the same color! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Didn't know that.. Ö But I still think that it would be better with black scale. —kallerna™ 21:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I always enjoy seeing the elements that you upload. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What program are you using for focus stacking?--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Econt (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! --Leviathan (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yiyi (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Quite impressive, like Two+Two=4 I'd also be interested in the software you used. -- H005 (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is brilliant, and the crystal quite beautiful. The best of your elements photos so far IMO. -- JovanCormac 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Korall (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support To H005 and Two+Two=4, CombineZP is excellent and free. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  16:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. Julielangford (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Where do you get these element-crystals? Are you really alchemist? ;) —kallerna™ 11:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • please ask me via email. And yes, I'm a modern Alchemist ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Nice and very interesting -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good image! --D-Kuru (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't like the background too much, but the quality of the gold (no pun intended) is too good to let it pass. Lycaon (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn 09:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Pandinus imperator 2009 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2009 at 12:05:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Emperor scorpion Pandinus imperator
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nightfall at Fallen Leaf Lake.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2009 at 20:02:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fallen Leaf Lake (California)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Steve Jurvetson - uploaded by Tm - nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXXtalk  20:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --   ■ MMXXtalk  20:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow!-- TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely. Julielangford (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Originalwana (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Extremely beautiful.—Andrei S. Talk 11:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna™ 20:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perhaps technically not perfect, but absolutely nice composition and atmosphere! The evidence that sunsets can be very special and not banal at all. -- MJJR (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice cloud.--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - What a beautiful sunset. Tiptoety talk 00:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry but find the colours and composition a bit kitschy. Also the quality is far from good (yes, I'm aware of the difficult conditions) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Cacophony (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flickr-kitsch, as Alvesgaspar. --Dschwen (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Alvesgaspar and Dschwen. Lycaon (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per the guidelines about sunsets. --S23678 (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not really good enough. Agree with Alvesgaspar, too. Maedin\talk 08:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per others above. Yann (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brown Hare444.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2009 at 01:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brown Hare
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by benjamint444 - uploaded by benjamint444 - nominated by Julielangford -- Julielangford (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Julielangford (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crop: not full pad and caudal --kaʁstn 12:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, i was wondering when I nominated, if the crop would be a barrier for people. I wondered about it quite a bit, but for me, the detail in the image is too good ot be overlooked based on just the crop. Julielangford (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That big eye scares me :-( And also I'd like a bit different (shorter exposure) colors. --Aktron (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, yes, its a big scary eye, but it makes the image. Julielangford (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While the crop is unfortunate, the quality is brilliant (amazing crispness) and the big eye gives this a lot of character. -- JovanCormac 10:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Agree with JovanCormac and personally I love the big eye. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm with Jovan and the Captain on this one. Great work! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Good quality is not enough. I don't like the framing and find the herbs distracting -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop. —kallerna™ 01:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Budurasti.bis lemn.pridvor V.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2009 at 11:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The porch of the wooden church in Budurăşti, Vâlcea County, Romania
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dahlia x hybrida.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2009 at 12:46:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foggy morning on Stow Lake.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2009 at 03:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stow Lake
The tilt is fixed. If you believe it is still present please tell me what side and how many degrees I should turn it. Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition doesn't work for me. There are 2 focal points, the waterfall and the small temple, each at an end of the panorama, with darker trees inbetween. Each of the focal points seems to have insufficient breathing space on their right (resp. left). It almost looks like the projector got stuck between 2 slides... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Tilt successfully removed. It's a very nice subject, makes me wish I was there, however I'm not sure whether there's enough wow for an FP - I think the composition is not ideal, too much water and to little of the trees and sky above the waterfall and pagoda. -- H005 (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you voted two times now.I did not want to cut off the reflection of the pagoda. So I believe there is just enough water to show the reflection.--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes, I stroke through my original vote but then ran into an edit conflict with Maurilbert, and forgot to strike it through again when I fixed that. Done now.
And reading Maurilbert's comment now, I believe he's right, it's probably the distance between the objects and the too little space to their left and right that doesn't appeal me, anyway, something just feels wrong when I look at it, sorry. -- H005 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. I would only like to repeat one more time that I could not do less of the water in order not to cut off the pagoda's reflection and I could not do more of the sky because there was not much of the sky anyway only the fog.--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yiyi (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The colors is not good (for me).--Claus (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The dynamic range of the scene is simply too much for a standard shot (compare the bright upper left corner with the dark center). This could make for a fantastic HDR image, but as it is the picture looks a little dull. -- JovanCormac 10:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree on the poor composition and dull lighting. Also, the image is not sharp (high ISO noise?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ISO was 100. It was very, very foggy.--Two+two=4 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seagulls Porto Covo July 2009-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 23:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Pas de deux with seagulls at the end of the afternoon. Porto Covo, Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, it's a very nice picture, but with a very bad crop. A bit more to the right, then I would support. --kaʁstn 12:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Carschten -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with Carschten --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with above, and it's a shame the bird on the right isn't entirely in focus. Iamthestig (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yiyi (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Carschten. -- JovanCormac 10:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tick 2 (aka).jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2009 at 13:55:00
A tick

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist: Below 2 megapixels (1,66), Full resolution very blurry, scale missing (don't know how big it is if you don't read the description) (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Carport (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Photos do not need a scale, ignorance isn't a reason to de-list (why doesn't a photo of an elephant also need a scale? ;-), we try to remove meta data from our images to make them most widely useful. Obvious strong mitigating reasons for size. A superb image of a tick. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Great picture. This is FP history.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 20:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist It's history. —kallerna™ 07:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Detail is good, and it seems to be the best picture of a tick we have, but the blur is still too much. -- JovanCormac 09:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep until we get better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Very valuable image of a tick, and the best we have at present. Julielangford (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Looks good although I got bitten by one recently ☹. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep   &#x95; Richard has a better one but it's only the head. Keep until a better one is made (hint hint) --ianaré (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --AM (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3 delist, 9 keep,  neutral => not delisted. --Karel (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Platetrum depressum 1 Luc Viatour.JPG, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2009 at 10:30:40
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 3 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Karel (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/August_2009&oldid=27826278"