Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2011

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 16:39:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Calocera viscosa
Absolutely not! We must show clearly that this fungus grows only on coniferous trees.--Citron (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2011 at 16:38:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 08:43:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

360° Panorama seen from the summit of the Hohneck mountain.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 14:48:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Old town of Freudenberg, Germany.
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 17:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Port of Mġarr (Gozo), "entrance to Gozo".
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2011 at 13:01:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Electric locomotive Škoda ChS8-075
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 19:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Español: Falco sparverius cinnamonimus en Montevideo, Uruguay. English: Falco sparverius cinnamonimus in Montevideo, Uruguay.
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 10 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2011 at 03:09:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Western Pond Turtle in Oregon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 15:13:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 CommentSorry again.errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicum. I encourage you to follow the link (in french, sorry) i provided above. Do you really think you know the place better than Mrs Béatrix Saulé, General Director of the Museum and National Domaine of the Château de Versailles, which Is responsible of the website ? Here Is shown an allegory, not a goddess. There was indeed a statue of Iris in another place in Versailles, but it Is destroyed now.--Jebulon (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the link, still didn't explain the caduceus. And why would such an object, one that is only associated with the deity pantheon be included in this unless it was meant to point back to that same mythology? No, I'm afraid you're gonna have to do better than that. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can do nothing for you, because you want that it is Iris. This is your opinion. But it is "The Peace", and it is not an opinion, but a fact. This statue is part of a set with an allegory of Abundance. Peace and Abundance makes sense. Iris and Abundance is a nonsense... About the caduceus, there is an explanation you obviously didn't read, but let's go, no matter.--Jebulon (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I re-read the text, I missed that line. Hmm... Fine, still skeptical but I'll accept your claim. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 21:08:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Monastery of Saint Anthony, Egypt
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 04:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Cymbium cymbium, Volutidae, False Elephant's Snout; Length 10,5 cm; Originating from the coast at Oued Chebeïka, Morocco; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 14:26:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 16:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Bullshit. That book-copy-pasted phrase we all know would mean something if there were not space wasted in the top-left. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Dwonsampledbokeh, that is a good trick... let´s see if an old dog can learn it... I hate the live view, but will try it at least once, and take it from there... and btw, I do have other versions of this pic, and you may have a point, however, this is the one that was uploaded... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike the life view too. That is just a trick and some people don't really need it. It is something related to the Stroop effect. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 16:26:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Tonna sulcosa, Tonnidae, Banded Tun; Length 13,5 cm; Originating from the Philippines; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

 Comment Mr W.S. you use a tripod? We are still waiting for your first photograph. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take photographs. Do I have to? W.S. 12:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 06:10:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Koodalmanikyam Temple is an ancient Hindu temple in Irinjalakuda, a small town in Trissur district, Kerala, India.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Bad general quality due to jpeg artifacts and a blurry image.--Snaevar (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2011 (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.
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 00:51:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mushroom, Hypsizygus ulmarius
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2011 at 17:54:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

* Support -- 87.106.215.227 17:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC) No anonymous votes, sorry. Please log in.--Jebulon (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 13:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2011 at 17:30:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Neugebäude Palace near Vienna around 1720, engraving by Johann Adam Delsenbach
I'm wondering what noise spots are. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "noise spots" he is referring to are marks on the paper itself. That is not a fault of the file though, it's in the nature of old prints like these to have impurities. Gryffindor (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but those spots can also be triggered while scanning. Eather way, I have cut the number of annonations down, and change my vote to  Neutral broken lines in the frame of the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 19:08:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Cassis flammea, Cassididae, Flame Helmet; Length 13 cm; Originating from the Caribbean; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

  •  Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Llez (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose OK don't get me wrong, this looks very nice, and good execution (scales seem consistent and all) but few issues annoy me:
    • reflections on the upper right view (but maybe you can prove me this is unavoidable and that this actually add value to the pic),
    • very noticeable compression artifacts,
    • I don't think the subject is symmetrical enough as to tolerate missing a sixth view

Little issues... but on repeatable shots, I consider we shouldn't forgive. - Benh (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 00:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Megyeri bridge, in Hungary.
  • Ich weiß ja nicht, was du siehst, aber ich sehe eine Schrägseilbrücke mit zwei Pylonen. Komisch, dass ich das sehe, obwohl das Bild laut dir keinen Eindrucken vermittelt, wie die Brücke wirklich aussieht. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 20:31:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lycoperdon perlatum
 Info You can see in the foreground a immature foot and to second 4 mature feet, which one has a hole in the top opens to release spores in a burst when the body is compressed by raindrops, a touch, falling nuts, etc. --Citron (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure it has encyclopedic value, but I don't find this picture very beautiful otherwise. As per Steven Walling. Maybe en wiki FPC is a better place also. - Benh (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong qualitatively speaking? Thank you to develop. --Citron (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a little dark, and the composition isn't super clear if the subject is the puff. Steven Walling 23:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Good depth of field, educational, the lighting seems very natural and it's framed pretty well. This image might not grab everybody because few people really care about mushrooms, but I find those other things I mentioned of this image better than the majority. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong artistically speaking? The colors are not shimmering enough? This is not the fault of this poor fungus. --Citron (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I do agree with Benh's assessment. Image is good value but misses the pizazz to be considered the best of the best that commons has to offer. W.S. 10:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, see the other featured pictures of mushrooms and tell me what is so extraordinary compared to this one. --Citron (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 17:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Castle in Sand in Taufers

Alternative

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 11:27:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crystal step of Gypsum (Calcium sulfate, Ca[SO4] • 2 H2O)
 Comment Dear W.S. we are still waiting for your first masking job! --Llez (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 14:30:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hofkirche in Dresden by night
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 00:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pine Grosbeak

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 22:32:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2011 at 18:59:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Motorway bridge under construction.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2011 at 20:57:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Photo of a flower, cool backlighted... +2 exposure for flower details..
 Info - The noted subjects are insects, small ants, quite natural.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2011 at 00:38:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Lewis and Clark Bridge crossing the Columbia River.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2011 at 10:09:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saarbrücken, Hafenstraße
The rule of thirds, the normative of thirds, the legislation of thirds, the dogma of thirds. OMG, who taught these kids photography? Rule of thirds is a guideline that enhances the composition of photos in many case. It is not a must have for a picture to be excellent. This picture is not good anyways but let's not have square heads with the rule of thirds. Mirror symmetries, patterns, ... are also, together with rule of thirds, some of the many structural displays that make a composition appealing. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2011 at 21:04:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunset at Ullal Bridge Mangalore - Nethravathi River
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 12:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the Lac de Longemer, in France.

 I withdraw my nomination --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 01:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
It's lithograph.--Paris 16 (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 07:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 Comment Dear W.S., what about the colours of your pictures??? --Llez (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The reviewer is entitled to his/her opinion, this is not about his/her picture, please avoid biting reviewers. --99of9 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 14:24:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2011 at 02:30:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Comment ELEKHH, picture was taken in Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico, in the central part of the country where a lot of the old traditions remain. And yes, you are right, picture was taken in January, however, these skulls are typical of Day of the Dead as I mentioned in the description. The fact that they are still on sale in some markets is just that they never really dissapear, much like Christmas or other figures, for example, they can be found in small scale in some markets. This picture was taken in a temporary Mexican Crafts show/market at the central city plaza along with items of different celebrations. I hope this adresses your concerns. If you want additional info, I´d be happy to supply it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 19:59:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I want your for U. S. Army by James Montgomery Flagg
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 21:20:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tschengla Panorama
  • (a) there is no person in the foreground, (b) the red guy does not really needs to be sharp since the image depicts the landscape, (c) the image is pretty sharp, considering the minimum standard of 2Mpix. Please look again and reconsider. --ELEKHHT 04:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selbstverständlich gehört der Standort der rot gekleideten Person zum Vordergrund des Bildes. Für den Gesamteindruck des Bildes spielt die Schärfe dieses Objektes zwar keine Rolle steht aber exemplarisch für die technischen Mängel. Wenn das Bild mit dieser verhältnismäßig großen Auflösung zur Verfügung gestellt wird dann muss auch diese zur Bewertung herangezogen werden. Im Übrigen ist mir dein persönlich motivierter Kommentar aufgefallen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me this is an image with person in foreground. Regarding (b)&(c) I expressed in numerous occasions that IMO images should be judged based on the same standard, not taking into account the camera type or submitted resolution. PS. Im Übrigen, mit der "persönlich motivierter Kommentar" liegst du ganz falsch. --ELEKHHT 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Für dich mag die Person im Hintergrund des Bildes sein, für mich gehört das zum Vordergrund. Unabhängig von dieser Kaisers-Bart-Diskussion: die technischen Mängel sind unübersehbar. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 15:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Recently born turtle
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 21:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 09:56:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kupari, Croatia - destroyed hotel Grand

 I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2011 at 17:03:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of Art Tatum
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2011 at 18:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel) from the U.S. Coast Guard-manned USS Samuel Chase disembarks troops of the U.S. Army's First Division on the morning of June 6, 1944 (D-Day) at Omaha Beach.

Alternative

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 01:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical
The chosen alternative is: File:1944 NormandyLST clean.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 20:35:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aleuria-aurantia
If you say so! Difficult to make extraordinary photos with simple mushrooms... --Citron (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Request Could you try cropping out the smidgeon of fungi that is already partially cut off? It's a great photo, but that little bit cut off drives me nuts, visually speaking. Either than or expand it perhaps? Steven Walling 01:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Citron (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merci! Looks much better IMO. Steven Walling 23:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 01:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 04:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created by Jebulon - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Claus
  •  Support -- Claus (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --SHION (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well,  Support, of course, and thanks for the kind surprise of this unexpected nomination ! --Jebulon (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great sharpness and lighting, well isolated from the background, and high encyclopedic value. --Cayambe (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, but if we feature this, then we can go along and feature all statues out there. Execution is good for sure, but no specific skills and equipment required, and this can be repeated again and again. Maybe this is a sort of rare statue ? Since I don't know I oppose. - Benh (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment skill: pas de tripode ni de flash, pas si simple à main levée... Equipment: On ne doit donc distinguer que les photos prises avec du matériel de luxe ou professionnel ? Accessoirement: quel type d'image (à part les panos de nuit, bien sûr) doit-on distinguer ? (je suis l'auteur, mais j'ignorais cette proposition que je n'aurais pas faite) --Jebulon (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pas de trépied ni flash... Et ? ça ne rend pas la prise plus difficile. Il suffit de se placer correctement, de se mettre dans un mode semi automatique, et l'appareil fait à peu près tout. Ça n'est pas comme si un appareil moderne à 200-300€ n'était pas équipé de stabilisateur et avait une très bonne qualité à hautes sensibilités de nos jours. N'importe qui peut prendre ce genre de photo et le détourage ne représente aucune difficulté particulière. Une fois maîtrisé (l'affaire de qq minutes), on peut répéter avec autant de statues que comporte le musée du Louvre. Je ne distingue pas l'équipement, mais je suis certain qu'il est beaucoup plus facile de prendre ce genre de photo qu'un panorama de nuit correctement fait (exposition, netteté de l'image, éclairage, opportunité, post traitement). Je te laisse vérifier (moi c'est fait)... Je pense qu'une FP doit représenter tout de même un certain challenge. Tu n'as pas à te justifier pour la proposition. On a fait qq propositions de photos à moi que je n'aurais pas faites non plus. Je trouve qu'on est devenu un peu trop "permissif" par ici. Les critères semblent tombés assez bas. - Benh (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ha ben je comprends mieux vos oppositions catégoriques et peu argumentées. --Citron (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Français ! ça va être plus simple. Oui j'ai un point de vu et je m'y tiens. Je trouve que j'ai la courtoisie de suffisamment argumenter (mais au bout d'un moment tu en as marre et tu abrèges un peu). Je pourrais te montrer des photos de champignons bien plus réussies d'un point de vue esthétiques, mais elles sont dans des magazines papiers. Elles sont prises avec un éclairage plus doux, peut être avec des réflecteurs sur le côté etc. Et elles font très bonne utilisation de la profondeur de champ en présentant des fonds flous, jolis, et qui détachent bien le sujet. Les photos que tout le monde peut prendre, je vote contre, sauf si ce sont des photos que tout le monde peut prendre mais qui sont jolies ou sauf si le sujet est particulièrement remarquable à mes yeux. Et j'insiste sur le fait qu'ici, la valeur encyclopédique ne prime pas, contrairement à ce que tu sembles croire. Dernière remarque, il ne faut pas se vexer pour un rien (référence à ta nomination de la photo du serpent sur FPC du wiki anglais et à toutes tes remarques en général), après tout, nous sommes là pour donner nos avis. - Benh (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • (Pourtant mon pseudo ne le cache pas!) Je comprends tout à fait que "mes" champignons ne te plaisent pas et qu'ils sont loin d'être parfaits. Je sais bien que le label FP se mérite, mais ces deux là ont retenu mon attention car ils restent vraiment intéressants. Je conçois que la deuxième ne soit pas parfaite techniquement et artistiquement parlant (d'ailleurs je l'ai retouché), mais la première est "jolie", alors forcément, je ne te suis plus. Je vois que tu as remarqué ma nomination foireuse, je t'avoue avoir été très surpris, je pensais qu'elle remporterait le même succès. Je ne suis pas vexé pour autant hein, mais j'aime à savoir ce qui ne va pas et si on m'avait dit que c'était la valeur encyclopédique qui primait sur En WP (je l'ignorais), j'aurais mieux compris. --Citron (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oui, les règles sont parfois longues et rébarbatives... Je rajouterai encore que d'après ce que j'ai compris, on nommerait plutôt ce type d'image (la statue, pas les champignons) dans les Quality Pictures. Pour moi ça correspond tout à fait à la description. Les champignons iraient plutôt dans les Valued Images (meilleure image d'un sujet donné). Et tu peux trouver qq chose de joli, mais pas d'autres... c'est un concept subjectif. - Benh (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commons is basically an image repository. We are just supposed to vote on which images are highest quality, best looking the "creme of the crop".. We're supposed to judge the image, not just the subject, for which in this and many other cases the subject is not the photographer's responsibility. Nextly it's really very subjective when you start talking about which things like which statues are better or more interesting than the all the other ones in the world and everyone might have different opinions on that, which again is why it's best just to stick to stuff we all already agree on: That our judgment is supposed to be on the images themselves. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're point of view looks justified to me, but mine still stands. FP has to be special. This kind of picture is so easy to take that is has nothing special anymore. If the subject is very special, rare or whatever I would think about it, but I don't have enough knowledge to see what's so extraordinary with this one. Louvre museum has hundreds of statues like that. There's no challenge in taking a picture like that. In short, an FP has to be a challenge a little IMO. Just my opinion. - Benh (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You and Jebulon maybe know something about that, but I'm American and have never been to France, so most of what I know about the Louvre is that the Mona Lisa is there and I have never seen this statue before. Which, since Commons is international, is why I once again remind you about subjective points. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • you are right and don't worry. On your opinion, is this picture good enough to deserve the FP status ? If yes, then support. If no, then decline, and explain shortly why... And don't follow anybody but your own taste and feeling. --Jebulon (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm, hard to say. It was taken under daylight, wasn't it? Because it seems very white and a bit bluish against the black. It's a little hard to discern how sharp it is also, but it's still pretty good... Meh,  Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Technically good.--Snaevar (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Technically good and Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Floating out of context. W.S. 15:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Beautiful sculpture, photographed well. --TFCforever (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great. --Aktron (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ggia (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 01:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2011 at 14:59:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Landscape around Husavík town in summer 2009, Iceland
revenge for [2]? --Tlusťa (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Poor english) I don't know. Persecution? I'm not sure. Perhaps if the user does not respond with criterion… must have administrators who punished. This is a precedent, unless Wladyslaw respond with criteria. Sorry, I am not nobody--Miguel Bugallo 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not a precedent, Taxiarchos228/Wladyslaw, has already been blocked on two other Wikimedia projects. --ELEKHHT 03:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
would be interesting to know what the (unjustified) blockades have to do with my opinion concerning this candidate. I was interessted why Chmee2 critizes facts but his own pictures not approach the criteria. it's a pity that Chmee2 nominates a poor quality picture I critiszed instead of anwsering my questions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that Tlusťa gave here link to my review. Everybody can easily see in other edits, if I answered your questions or not why yours two images are not good candidates for QI. However thank you for your vote here, but I nominated this image regardless your comments on QI page. Regards --Chmee2 (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. What an amazing coincidence that I mentioned this picture 15 Minutes before you nomineted it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not deny, that I realized via your link, than I do not yet try to nominate this shot from Iceland. However this was not main message from my previous comment. --Chmee2 (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 01:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 18:08:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Comment Mexico is a land of colors, contrasts, paradoxes, etc. Religion is a major element of Mexican culture, and so is chaos, and breaking of the rules among other things. If you study Mexican culture, you inevitably come upon the term "sincretismo", which is a term that translates into the modification and adaptation of two belief systems merged into one. This comes from the merging of two cultures, Mexican and European. In this particular case, one side of the image promotes drinking, smoking and whatever behaviour is associated with alchohol and tobacco, being carried out by a monkey, which in turn personifies among other things reckless or funny human behaviour, and the other part of the image depicts religious figures, the Virgin of Guadalupe, a powerful icon in Mexico´s religion, venerated before God! who in turn represents whatever religious values represent, but associated with opposite values of the monkey... Anyway, so we have monkey, drinking, smoking on one side, then we have the Virgin and other religious icons on the other, and then we have the consumer-like merchandising of the icon, and on top of that we have the colorful artistic expressions of the icons. If anything, this picture is just a very, very small window into cultural practices. That is the context. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 00:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2011 at 14:47:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mycale laxissima (Strawberry Vase Sponge)
These are not worms, these are Brittle star. I am unable to identify them accurately. =) --Citron (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 00:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2011 at 21:05:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Street in Quito, Ecuador
From en:Wikiepdia: According to UNESCO, Quito has the largest, best-preserved, and least-altered historic centre (320 hectares) in Latin America
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 01:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 19:52:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

he confluence of the Sava into the Danube at Belgrade. Pictured from Kalemegdan.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 01:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2011 at 22:15:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

UDFj-39546284, Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Ever Seen in Universe.

UDFj-39546284, Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Ever Seen in Universe. 1-26-2011.

Astronomers have pushed NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to its limits by finding what is likely to be the most distant object ever seen in the universe. The object's light traveled 13.2 billion years to reach Hubble, roughly 150 million years longer than the previous record holder. The age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years.

Hubble Finds Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Ever Seen in Universe. Astronomers pushed Hubble to its limits by finding what is likely to be the most distant object ever seen in the universe. The object's light traveled 13.2 billion years, roughly 150 million years longer than the previous record holder.

The farthest and one of the very earliest galaxies ever seen in the universe appears as a faint red blob in this ultra-deep–field exposure taken with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. This is the deepest infrared image taken of the universe. Based on the object's color, astronomers believe it is 13.2 billion light-years away.

The most distant objects in the universe appear extremely red because their light is stretched to longer, redder wavelengths by the expansion of the universe.

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field infrared exposures were taken in 2009 and 2010, and required a total of 111 orbits or 8 days of observing. The new Wide Field Camera 3 has the sharpness and near-infrared light sensitivity that matches the Advanced Camera for Surveys' optical images and allows for such a faint object to be selected from the thousands of other galaxies in the incredibly deep images of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field.

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 01:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 15:21:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Playboy founder Hugh Hefner at the Glamourcon 2010 convention
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 21:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bürstegg bei Warth
  •  Info created by Alex.vonbun - uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info At the foot of Warther Karhorn 2.416m in Lechquellengebirge is the oldest and highest (1.719m) Walsersiedlung in Vorarlberg. The church, built in 1695 dedicated to St. Martin. Until the late 19th Century, the settlement was inhabited throughout the year. After most of the houses were demolished.
  •  Support Wahaa, reminds me soo well my last winter trip to the Alps... Very nice ! - Benh (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

[edit]

Alternative by User:Ggia

[edit]

 Comment it will more kind for the community to try to do it yourself. Why don't you try to edit this image yourself? Ggia 15:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment W.S. please do not remove my comment [4].. This image is not mine but I tried to improve it and I proposed as an alternative.. Why don't you try to upload a new version with corrected these technical flows? Here in commons and FPC we are trying also to help other photographers with kind comments.. If you find my comment as a attack please go and give a notice to the community. Thanks.. Ggia (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The comment was not removed by W.S (Wetenschatje), but by Walter Sigmund, if I'm not wrong...--Jebulon (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
T'as tort. The comment was removed per Walter Sigmund by W.S. - W.S. 15:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Sorry. Good lesson to me : Never care about things I'm not concerned. For me, rule hard to enforce, as one can see sometimes :)--Jebulon (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not polite to remove others comments. If you find it "tort", report it to the community.. do not remove it. There is a discussion [5] about that in the commons FPC talk page.I left you a message in your talk page in case you want to participate in this discussion. Ggia (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /W.S. 08:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 23:04:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Callospermophilus lateralis
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 17:08:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Chiragra Spider Conch; Length 19 cm; Originating from Samar, Eastern Visayas, Philippines; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

  •  Comment Sorry, this are the natural colours of this specimen. For colour variation in Strombidae see e.g. [6],[7], especially this species [8] and on the other hand very pale ones like [9]. It can vary from very intensive colours to very pale. --Llez (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Six are not necessary. In the lower row, you have the back and the front view. The lateral view is identical with the lateral view in the upper row, only inclined on 90 degrees. Why do you insist on two identical pictures, only differentiating in the angle of presentation? BTW, if it is necessary to show more views, I do so, see [10]. --Llez (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I believe (naive thinking maybe) that six is the minimum to have a comprehensive view of the subject, which I think is the goal of such images. Thank you for the answer... but I still oppose :) (because of the other points I raised, but that won't change anything). - Benh (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand your answer to Ben's question. Where is the image from the exact opposite side of the shell compared to the central image in the top row? That is not equivalent to any of the ones you've presented. --99of9 (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, because you're understating that the missing view can be deduced from that central lateral view. Which is wrong because the shell doesn't show any symetry to me (unless I've really missed something...). - Benh (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This five views show all characters, which are necessary for identifying the species: The form, colour and structure of the shell, the decline of the aperture, the (possible) different structure and colour of the ventral side, the aperture itself, the apex anf the siphonal region. The sixth view you want to see, gives no further information. That’s the reason why. But please let me know, why you insist on six views only in my pictures?
    There are several featured pictures of shells, which show only one or two views ([11], [12] ,[13], [14], [15], and so on). Can you please explain me, why you didn't oppose in this cases? I was the first, who showed more, and you oppose. Are two better than five? And why only in shells? Are gastropods the only animals, which have several aspects? I've never seen opposing a FPC of a bird with the the argument, that one can not see the backside, the ventral side, the left and right side, the front and the anus at the same picture. Birds look somewhat different, too, regarded from a different view. I wonder, if these animals [16], which were nominated by you, look identical if seen from backside. But not only animals. What about churches [17], lakes, mountains? Do you want always have six views, before become featured? Then we will have really little candidates in future. --Llez (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked at all examples, but I didn't support either I think. I'm not always wandering on FPC, some time, I'm away for a while. I may have opposed. I'm OK to feature 1, 2, 3 shells... but so many of them, I become bored. Then they must feature something a bit special. And you're kidding right ?? Animal aren't as simple to shoot as still shells... the picture is also much more beautiful IMO. Same applies to landscapes, which aren't as simple to take as one might think, and can't always be repeated. I mainly vote based on photographic skills. If you intend to be encyclopedical, do it right (or see en:FPC, de:FPC etc.). If you can't justify the missing view, I oppose. I still think u need at least 6 on most objects. And anyhow I have others reason, as already given. If you shoot still objects, you should at least do it right (better then using direct flash light, choosing better aperture... I don't think f/25 is suitable choice, but if you think the contrary, I'm open to discussion, which doesn't seem to be the case by your side since you always skip the questions). - Benh (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm meaning that if the encyclopedical value prevails here, then it seems to me that the FPC of Wikipedias (in most langs but french) should be more suitable place. - Benh (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the words, but I don't understand the assertion above . In my opinion (I read the guidelines like others...), this is wrong, or a misinterpretation, and I strongly disagree (as one can see). Commons is not a place for "only" photographical beauty contests (many other sites for that). But here is not the place for such a discussion. The question is (again): what is feature-able ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not everyone read the guidelines... as already seen on the nomination of your image below. And if you have already read the complete guideline, then I'll just recall you that high technical merit is important component of an FP, as well as wow factor. This picture has none of them. And sorry to say, but neither does yours. It's well done, but anyone could do the same. - Benh (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anyone could do the same", but I feel really alone sometimes with my "inside" pictures... Anyway, I give up... Some reviewers seems suffering very hard here and it is a pity. I don't understand why they stay if it is so painful to stand those poor pictures... Something funny : if they oppose, their vote is immediately followed by two or three support votes... I don't really know why and it is unfair: they are so sure to hold the Truth...--Jebulon (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I get Benh's point, but not quite. I've wondered about the choice of 5 and whether a simple back and front shot combo wouldn't accomplish the same basic educational effect, but whatever. That's Llez's signature style (Benh, did you bother going to Llez's user page? Though Llez has done 6, 4, even 8 angle before). I could see a 6th angle for the side the opposes the furthermost point of the "lip," whatever the proper scientific term is, but the 5 angles I think usually works because Llez tends to arraign them nicely, but to each his own.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 12:48:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Landscape around Landmannalaugar region in summer 2009, Iceland
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 04:06:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Opal Pool at the Midway Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park
There was no color enhancement in this image; the raw image is virtually identical, with no in-camera enhancement either, and I dislike enhanced images as much as you do. The bacterial mats and water at Grand Prismatic Spring and its neighboring pools like Opal really look like this. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry, but noisy--Miguel Bugallo 18:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

[edit]

  •  Comment I know I can't vote, but that doesn't mean I should abstain of commenting. I really liked the image, although I agree with Carschten that the image is quite noisy. Therefore I retouched it, my noised filtered version is this one.--Gaendalf (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated. I'll get in touch with you about your methods, as I'm aware that my camera has a noisy sensor and have had some difficulty in dealing with it. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
The chosen alternative is: File:Opal Pool YNP2 filtered noise.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 06:56:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fruit of Raphia
  • Sure. Notice I don't oppose based only on the fact that I'm bored. Just this makes me more picky on my assessments. Your only justification is that the object itself has value. I never thought otherwise. But from a pure photographic point of view; I'm not impressed (I still maintain the lighting is harsh and flat despite the three attenuated light sources. And why these context removal around objects ? Cheap and easy way to hide bad looking shadow ?). I prefer lighting on the following scenes, here or here or here. Hence my opposes. I'd see FPC on the wikipedias themselves to emphasize the encyclopedic value. Let met add that contrary to some, I don't restrain myself from giving my full opinion on something. If I don't like something, I say so. Otherwise, I would consider starting political career. Is it a shame to oppose ? - Benh (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vos goûts artistiques sont effectivement très personnels. Je reste donc les musées, où je suis sûr de ne pas vous rencontrer. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remarque facile... (quoi que vu le temps qu'elle a mis à venir, ça ne semblait pas si facile pour vous) mais fausse (au vu des autres avis, ça n'est pas si personnel) et vraiment hors contexte. Je suis peut être direct dans mes propos, mais au moins ça tourne toujours autour de la photo même. Je ne vise pas gratuitement les contributeurs mêmes. Même si je dois dénoncer certaines choses. Si seulement ça pouvait être votre cas... Si vous insistez, vous pouvez rester (dans) les musées où vous ne risquez effectivement pas de me croiser souvent. Moi je préfère prendre l'air. Dommage, en dehors de ça, vos contributions me semblent plutôt faire du bien à Wikipédia en général. - Benh (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2011 at 17:45:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Hexaplex erythrostomus, Muricidae, Pink Mouthed Murex; Length 9,5 cm; Originating from the East Pacific.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 23:44:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The vast ocean... Photoghraph of the sea and its activity taken at a tropical beach in Costa Rica.
 Comment In my humble opinion, the picture's composition is according with the Rule of Thirds, what makes it special is the figure produced by the waves crashing against the rocks and the time of the day at which it was shot with the moon in the sky and a nice natural colors. --Gaendalf (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per THFSW, oil painting look, and overall very poor quality. What kind of NR or artistic filter was applied ?? Composition not to my tastes with too much room given to the sky (subjective issue, not my main raison for opposing). - Benh (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Polarizing filter at dawn and at the specific degree of rotation of the filter creates this looks. --Gaendalf (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was talking about the digital filter you applied with image manipulation soft ;) The bottom part has more color blotches (sorry for the poor english) than details (Noise Reduction ?) - Benh (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think I get what you are referring to. And you're right about it, this color "blotches" or posterization of the bottom section of the image was probably caused by an inappropriate tunning of both sharpness and noise reduction. Any filter was applied. I incorrectly manipulated this parameters in posprocessing. --Gaendalf (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Remember the Rule of Thirds, there are almost 2/3 of sky and 1/3 of sea. IMO there's no composition problem, having 1/2 and 1/2 would make the picture boring and having more sea than land would imply to lose the moon in the composition. --Gaendalf (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The moon wouldn't appropriately fit in the picture if there wasn't so much sky. It maintains the Rule of Thirds: 1/3 of sea and 2/3 of sky. --Gaendalf (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks closer to 1/2. The Moon is so minor in this. What about cropping the image down to 2/3 sea 1/3 sky? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 23:17:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ruby Beach

- nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2011 at 21:31:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Focussed Mespilus flower.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 19:23:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Christoph Ahlhaus
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 12:02:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A panoramic view of Carcasssonne
  •  Question Eeerh, sigh... Could one of you actually show where the obvious stitching errors are (you mention several ones) ? I see one, but not as obvious as that, and I believe I'm a trained eye... It's not even sure you were talking about the same. To me the bridge looks like that. I've been there. No parallax issue here. Some overexposed parts but that really can't be avoided here given the circumstances... - Benh (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I don't understand "Eeerh, sigh...". I've been there too. Perspective could be good if the bridge were alone (if you isolate it, point de fuite centré au milieu du pont), and I personally didn't talk about "obvious stitching errors", that's not exactly what I mean. I just say that, if I were in this place, I couldn't see this as it is shown.--Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh = soupir. No u didn't mention stitching issue directly, but mentioned parallax. Then you'll have to explain more clearly in which way the perspecive doesn't look good... Because I really don't get you here. The slopes at each end of the bridges aren't parallax, perspective or stitching issue. They are... just slopes. Please be more careful when reviewing images and look deeper into your memories. Image googling or Google street view can help... In any way, if none of you can justify, you should consider revising your opinions. - Benh (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, and not convinced. Even if the bridge is slightly curved in real (I know it is), I think the perspective is wrong. I'm very able to admit when I mistake, and I revise my opinions many times. Furthermore nobody is well founded to explain me how I have to review, or patronizing with me or trying to provide me lessons. No need to be contemptuous or giving me orders. Here is the place for public comments about pictures, not for binary controversies about comments of others. I've got a PDD for direct discussions with other reviewers if needed.--Jebulon (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this panorama is messed up. The bridge seems distorted and improbable, the perspective doesn't seem to be a smooth curve but seems to be broken in three or four (compare with something like one of these). I found one ghost I noted on the image itself since the annote thing seems broken for this one. Since the bridge is the main subject with the castle the secondary, if the bridge is messed up... -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow... what can I say ? Why is the bridge broken in three parts on the picture ? Oooh maybe because it is in reality ! Please check by urself. Image googling, street view or whatever, and eventually revise ur review. U may oppose, but please do so based on true facts. Your comparison has no sense at all. On the other picture, FOV is far wider, hence the pronounced distortion. The curve may also depend on the projection used. A straight line may not be curved at all on rectilinear projection. And one ghost... do you actually take night photos of touristy places ? Please try and you should realise how empty of meaning your remark is. It's already very nice there's so few ghosts. You should restrain yourself from reviewing a subject you apparently don't know much about. - Benh (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, so you live under this bridge then? I still don't like the ghost man and tree. I see them as subtractive of quality and as nasty, unrealistic, unfeatureable and non-artistic image screw ups that might've been more understandable a long time ago even if this bridge is lop-sided by design or then-current architectural restraints, and no panorama can do justice to such an apparently flawed structure. Such an irregular design looks so much like a messed up stitch, so maybe if you knew something about what can go wrong with panoramas you would've understood and known why two frequent Commons FPC voters could have such an opinion. Furthermore this image is not "tourist-y" in the sense that there's practically no one in it and if it were rectilinear I should expect to see some parallel lines, which I don't see in this nomination, the buildings on the right even seem slightly tilted, but since this is roughly what the actual bridge looks like I'm switching my vote to  Neutral, even though I don't think this image or this type of image is best to showcase this type of structure and anything more than a thumbnail version of this image looks God-awful. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really don't get it here. But at least you recognized your error, unlike some. The fact you don't like the structure is completely different matter, but photographer can't do anything about that. And I think you really got my point here : you would've understood and known why two frequent Commons FPC voters could have such an opinion. Yes that's how far FPC has gone... such reviewers which such non sense reviews. Where did I say that the image is touristy ? didn't I mention the place ? And where in the world if it were rectilinear I should expect to see some parallel lines ??? I'd like to know more about that. Could you develop ? Being frequent reviewer doesn't automatically qualify you as good photographer it seems. You and Jebulon please try to take such pictures, just by curiosity. - Benh (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should restrain yourself from reviewing a subject you apparently don't know much about.. I think this kind of quote is very interesting (it means something like shut up), but dangerous like a boomerang...--Jebulon (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same applies to you Jebulon (restraining from reviewing)... Seeing perspective issues where there isn't. I just mention facts contrary to you (did you give me more details about why the perspective is strange ? No, hmmm curious how some of you avoid factual answers over here...). Anyone searching a little sees that the picture is faithful to reality. But oh well... - Benh (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose unnatural colors (ie. sky) and a lot of overexposed, underexposed areas. Ggia (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 15:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tyndall effect on CN Tower, Toronto
  • Well, it shows that the building is clearly tall and there's a circular structure on it, but IMO it's kind of hard to get a gauge for the uniqueness of the building since from this angle you can't see much. I guess that's a passive way of saying something more straight-on that shows a side of a really tall building seems better to me in most cases. It's interesting in that it shows a shadow of the building, but there's also so much dead space.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a said: the building itselfe (here: the CN Tower) is only a derivative aspect of this picture. Therefore there is no need to show the architecture in a way you would surly do if you want to show the structure. The physical phenomenon was my first intention. On the other side this interessting and non common view straigt up shows as a beautiful graduation of blue tones; and this is in my view not dead space; on the contrary: it needs space. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 23:27:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  I withdraw my nomination.--Paris 16 (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 04:46:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ringneck blenny
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 22:19:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hoh Rain Forest
  •  Support Kinda like it, conflicted about the trail though. On one hand it makes me think this isn't natural, then I feel like it's a generic shot anyone could've taken. But I like the quality, this is framed well, the lighting is very good and it's a good tourist-y shot that kind of makes you feel like going on a hike IMO lol. I think it would be better if cropped on the left so the eye would be drawn toward the path instead of the tree, because looking at it now you look at the tree, then the path and it makes your spirit sink a little because you go from "Wow! What a wild, old tree!" to "Oh, a clearly man-made walkway. This setting must therefore be in some kind of park or botanic garden; Now I feel like the whole scenery could be imitation". At least if it were cropped my theory is that more emphasis on the trail changes the mood of this image to wonder of what is up ahead. One idea of mine (I would've liked to crop it [[::File:Hoh Rain Forest, Olympic National Park, Washington State, 1992.jpg - Cropped 2.jpg|more]] but it's below 2MP then). -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC) (here's the other one 'til the links get fixed.) -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 14:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic photo of Erie, Pa., c1912.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 12:37:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the High Engadin valley from Muragl, canton Grisons, Switzerland.
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 18:43:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Presbyterian Church, Tadoussac
  •  Oppose I agree with Benh, the kids loitering severely ruins my interest in this. The angle's ok, could be better, but I don't like the parked vehicles (re-shoot on a day no one's at church maybe?). Lastly this needs white balancing. Nice church, but not this image. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 18:47:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wind Lift I
thanks :) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 10:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gate of All Nations, Persepolis, Iran.
 Comment I don't understand your comment or how this image can be better. This image has been selected from many that I made there and IMO is the best with high EV (having all these elements inside the image). Ggia (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not the best point of view IMO. I'd have stepped back (provided this is possible) to try to parallelize as much as possible the vertical lines and left a bit more room around the subject. Hence wrong perspective issue mentioned above maybe. - Benh (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am sorry I cannot satisfy your request.. I have some other pictures of the Gates of All nations but I think that this is a good one and illustrative.. but if you go a little far away the change the perspective and the image is not the same (positions of the columns in the middle will change). BTW even two people don't like this image.. I updated this image.. (if you see the history files I tried different edits).. the new image has better contrast and colors.. If you have some technical comments please do them. Ggia (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I understand Benh's comments and I agree, but I agree to Ggia's explanations and annotations too. Given the esthetic choice of the photographer, the perspective distortion was unavoidable IMO. Matter of taste at the end ? Well, I support.--Jebulon (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I annotated the Gate of All nations in this panoramic image to understand the topography of that monument. Ggia (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment can you show me with some notes these chromatic aberrations? There is space to the left and to the right and to the top.. in the bottom I think it is not necessary to have more space.. I don't find the image distorted.. it is a 28mm lens photo. Ggia (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 08:52:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Iodine bolete
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2011 at 22:27:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Faschina Panorama
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 10:02:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Thanks. If the source is this as indicated, I am afraid that the colors are not faithful in the nominated image (supposing that the image on the National Gallery site is "Celui cy...plus / Resamblant au naturel" (="This one... more alike to naturalness")). --Myrabella (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2011 at 16:32:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Louis-Maurice Boutet de Monvel's illustration for the song "Au Clair de la Lune"
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Resolution is below 2MegaPixels, Contest is invalid: this is not an animation nor a vector image. W.S. 07:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 11:38:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Old city of Kharanaq, Iran.
  •  Comment before voting oppose it is more polite to make a comment about the overexposed areas.. I can work with that.. Also you said it is blurry.. Sorry I don't find so burry for voting against it. Ggia (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I updated a new version of the file (new version from the NEF raw file). If it is blurry it should be in all the image.. Only in the sky a de-noise filter has been used. It is made with D700 Nikon full-frame camera.. it is not an image from stitched images.. If you have some technical comments please make them.. If you don't like the composition, it is not "a wow" subject or not enough EV etc.. please mention.. If you find blurry then please FPX it. Thanks. Ggia (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Ok, listen. If would have thought the image was an FPX, then I would have done so. And the image wasn´t blown either. The composition is good, the wow factor is something I rarely vote pictures on, and the EV is fine too. What I thought was that the image would have been better if it was taken at a different time of day, as it had negitive effects on the details of the picture, In my opinion. I do appreciate the improvements you made, and quite frankly, they are good enough that I change my vote to  Support.--Snaevar (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As I am a cheat sometimes, I would have remove the black spotlight...--Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ooh.. Ah... Though I don't like the dark, seemingly vignetted part of the sky. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Messy composition - Benh (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per IdLoveOne and chromatic aberration. W.S. 14:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment can you show me where are the chromatic aberrations? Please note them on the image.. Ggia (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is all over the place. W.S. 08:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 17:22:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • I didn't mention it looks pixelated ;) about the CCW tilt, I had same feeling, but putting any vertical line against edge of the monitor shows that there isn't any tilt. - Benh (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but this is mitigated by circumstances. First, Hong Kong harbour is very busy. Second, this is made is long exposures shots, so this is hard to avoid. Third, this is taken at dusk, and therefore timing is very short. Usually, you can repeat a shot, so as to choose the one without disturbing elements, but not at dusk where you take the risk to have exposures inconsistencies because of the sun setting down. - Benh (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 18:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Naturschutzgebiet Gipslöcher Lech
  •  Question Just why not ISO 100 and a slightly larger aperture ? Noise is very noticeable and as far as I know, a too narrow aperture has some image quality penalty. But given the size, it's very minor issues. - Benh (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to have, but this must be activated somehow. See [19] - Benh (talk)
 Comment I added a support vote! Ggia (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I suppose it is a way to show some scorn to the reviews (and the reviewers) : turn in derision arguments by using them for an opposite (and oppose, obviously) vote. Please see the same thing in votes under the pic of Hong Kong. Very funny, isn't it ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 14:50:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dubrovnik, Croatia - old harbour

 Comment According to the title this is an image of the harbor, not that mountain. Why not crop the peak down so we're not being teased by a boxed in mountain like so (if you like it)? I think it also makes the mountain seem taller. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 22:32:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mirror symmetry and sky reflection on the sea in Junquillal Beach, Costa Rica.
 Comment Snaevar, please don't be so drastic, this cropped rock could easily be adjusted. The waves problem can't be solved. That's really the interesting aspect of this part of the beach, so to say it's "waveless". As you can see there's a rock formation on the background that prevents the ocean from directly collide with the shore. Therefore this "pool", where the rocks of the foreground stand, is completely calm and allows the mirror symetry. A beach with this geological characteristics is quite unusual which makes the picture interesting and unique. I've visited a lot of tropical beaches in my country and until this last trip, I haven't seen a geological formation like this one. Please consider that. Thanks --Gaendalf (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment There is three different ways for me to answer that comment of yours, but in the end, I´ve have to choose one. See that geolocial formation there, it´s not only in the pacific, it´s also in the Atlantic Ocean, where in the United Kingdom alone there are at least 10 of those formations. Personally, I´ve seen many of those formations, and do find it quite ordinary, becouse of that experience. The waves are a more of a matter of taste, than techicality, becouse you could go with the calm looking and perhaps soothing look (that I think you have been looking for) or focus on the waves and the forces that shaped that pool in the first place. Finally, the rock to the left shouldn´t be there, and the reasoning about how easily it can be removed can be used both ways.--Snaevar (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of geological formation might be quite ordinary in the UK and other not-tropical beaches. But for a tropical beach is extraordinary. Finding a beach like this one in Costa Rica itself is a bit difficult, you can compare that with all the beaches' images you can find in this category. The only one I find a bit similar is this one, which I've visited myself and hasn't such big pools. I agree with you the waves concept is totally subjective. As I told you in this scenario was impossible to capture the waves because they crashed behind that rock formation, while the "pool" stayed calm. As you can see the rock from the left was eliminated in the new cropped version I proposed bellow. Thanks for the comment --Gaendalf (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version

[edit]


As some stated, the image wasn't approriately cropped, and I agree. This is my fixed version without the rock from the left. I also checked it and the horizon isn't tilted, as you can see in this image that corroborates that:
--Gaendalf (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 03:04:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Upupa epops
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 11:15:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

South Melbourne Townhall

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2011 at 20:23:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spantax Beechcraft C-45 Expeditor 18
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2011 at 13:56:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tabacica mosque in Mostar, BiH - minater
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2011 at 21:43:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scorpaena porcus
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /IdLoveOne (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 00:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

RMS Sagafjord
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /IdLoveOne (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 20:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Green shield bug Palomena-prasina
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /IdLoveOne (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2011 at 17:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 17:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2011 at 19:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The terminal of the Athens-Piraeus Electric Railway (Metro system green line) at Piraeus.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 00:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2011 at 19:32:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Question I cannot fully understand your comment (english is a second language for me).. Do you find this image low quality? having an experience with black & white film photography I can say that this image is very good quality and has good restoration. Do you have a problem with some users? Go ahead and describe your problems.. better in the talk page. Ggia (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 00:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 11:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: No appropriate license ELEKHHT 04:36, 18 February 2011 (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.
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2011 at 01:27:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eurasian Eagle Owl
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 07:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2011 at 02:17:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 07:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2011 at 17:08:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 17:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2011 at 17:06:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 17:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2011 at 16:49:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Statue of Jeanne d'Arc, at the Ballon d'Alsace, France.
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2011 at 16:46:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Statue of Notre-Dame du Ballon, at the Ballon d'Alsace, France.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 05:40:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A campaign poster for William McKinley that advocates the gold standard. Was for 1900 elections, a turning point in American politics back to the Republican side.
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 08:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2011 at 10:49:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Basilica in Brussels, interior
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too much noise, tilted, bad crop and distortion - Berthold Werner (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 14:41:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 10:28:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
* Support nicely composed. CoolTV
no right to vote --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 12:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Qingbai(bluish white) glazed buddha statue, Jingdezhen ware,1271~1368 A.D., a collection of Shanghai Museum
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 10:17:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Andromeda Galaxy
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 16:22:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Monanchora unguifera (Pink Lumpy sponge)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 21:06:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Varberg Fortress, Sweden, former armory to the left.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 18:07:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View From St. Peter's Basilica
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: is an example of what should not be nominated 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.

W.S. 10:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Commentdidn't notice any stitching errors? I admit the bottom bit isn't great, maybe it could be cropped? Thomas888b (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are ghosts all over the bottom, take another look. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2011 at 00:17:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Young Moose
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 13:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2011 at 10:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spectacular panorama of Dolomites
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's much too noisy, sorry (interesting subject though) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 18:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pereslavl museum, bell-tower and Epiphany church (1768—1777), on Christmas 2011
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 20:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2011 at 21:46:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Rüppell's Vulture at Nairobi National Park, Kenya.
  • Thank you for your comments. I see what you mean, but I guess rather harsh shading is inevitable and with the sun overhead in Kenya. Actually, I think it is interesting that the shadow is seen directly under the bird as is only possible near the Equator. Anyway, I think that the shaded parts of the wild vulture are seen clearly enough, and I am reluctant to change the lighting levels. I thought it is interesting (with high educational value) to see the feather pattern of the top one wing and the underside of the other wing, as well as the other features of the bird. Incidentally, do you mean head room above the bird or in front of the bird? Snowmanradio (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the response. You bring up an interesting point about the shadow being a contributing factor to the educational value, but I think it might be a good idea to note something along those lines in the file description. I'll consider this particular concern alleviated. However, now that I look closer, it seems some of the bird's white patches are washed out, but this probably isn't the biggest issue in the world. As for the lead room, I meant ahead of the bird. Presently it feels like it's about to run off the side of the image, which, at least for me, is not a comfortable feeling on the eyes. I don't think there's much that can be done at this point, though. If I'm being too critical, just let me know and I'll retract my oppose. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In welcome your opinion of the crop, because I was thinking about giving more room in front of the bird, but I did not want to divide a tussock of grass in half with the right margin of the image. Anyway, I have done a minor edit and re-cropped it to give slightly more room in front of the vulture and brought the margin to the other side of the tussock. I was also thinking that I should write about the shadow in the image description, while replying to your first response. I would respect your opinion, if you oppose or support. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2011 at 17:16:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

 --Paris 16 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /IdLoveOne (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2011 at 04:34:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cathedral Group, Grand Teton National Park
Since the mountains quite literally lean to the right, a tighter crop on that side looked too tight to me when I tried it. Acroterion (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2011 at 18:00:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 20:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2011 at 17:33:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 00:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 21:52:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mostar (Bosnia and Hercegovina) and Neretva - view from Stari Most
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 00:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2011 at 09:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2011 at 20:21:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rapperswil SG
Thanks for the comment. Building links is not parallel to the rest of the other buildings. Perhaps it seems so estwas inclined, I don't know. --Böhringer (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you put a true horizontal? Snowmanradio (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the tree crowns before the houses front --Böhringer (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (edit)

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2011 at 18:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View from the Schindlerspitze
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2011 at 21:22:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An Eastern Gray Squirrel in Palatine, Chicago, USA.
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 00:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2011 at 21:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • I did. That's kind of what shells look like up close - glossy yet chalky. The blotches and stripes aren't going to be totally pure from the white parts, the colors will smudge and blur together like that naturally. You can see tiny dimples and ridges. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think about the patterns when I talk about the blurriness, and I don't think Sneavar did either. The fine reliefs you mention and that we can see should be sharper than that. Nothing is as sharp as it deserves at f/32. See this [20]. We already notice that f/16 alters the image quality, so we can imagine how bad a setting f/32 is. Maybe it was for getting more DOF, but not sure this is a good compromise. - Benh (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better DOF often means better sharpness overall, the primary concern of F numbers seems to be brightness not sharpness and in the case of a scientific image meant to show off detail of an item like this one I don't see anything else that could matter besides getting the full depth. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really... DOF is the part of the image where sharpness is close enough to the best spot. If that best spot if already very bad, as in f/32, you'll be only close enough to bad. Since you seem to care about quality of a scientific image, you should be a bit more picky about that. Also please note the use of ISO 200 when this is absolutely not necessary. So, either each image could be shot a lower f number, meaning better quality and less DOF, but the OOF parts would likely be in focus on the other views anyways; or either author could use stack focusing, as per this very fine example of this (not hard at all to use) technique. Well it's a bit harder on potentially moving macro subjects. - Benh (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 00:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2011 at 23:08:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

White-breasted Nuthatch
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2011 at 22:35:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

American Red Squirrel
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2011 at 22:08:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An adult Straw-necked Ibis near Bunbury, Western Australia, Australia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 07:28:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ivan Vazov National Theatre in Sofia
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 18:46:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fogo, Cape Verde Islands
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 19:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Satellite images

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2011 at 15:23:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Garden Nasturtium


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 08:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

CN Tower and Toronto Waterfront at night
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 14:58:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Türk Yıldızları in flight
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2011 at 06:10:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Field on slopes of Cosdon Hill
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is tiny. 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.

W.S. 10:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2011 at 12:02:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Site of the Borne des Trois Puissances, near Réchésy (FR), Beurnevésin (CH), Pfetterhouse (FR).
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 22:15:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Tilted horizon not always means a flaw.. look in example the second image with tilted horizon by famous photographer Joseph Koudelka. Here the image is well balanced even the horizon is tilted. Ggia (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 9 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 22:13:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2011 at 09:31:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Callyspongia vaginalis (Branching Vase Sponge - yellow variaiton)

 Citron (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see this one, it's the same quality... File:Callyspongia vaginalis (Branching Vase Sponge - pink variation).jpg--Citron (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /IdLoveOne (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 09:05:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Elle est nue à la lumière de feu - 벌 거 벗은 여자 벽난로 근처 - 附近一个壁炉的裸女 - Nude in Fire Light -Web translator
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 15:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Royal Nederland artilery in Avganistan. Bombastic shot, in every aspect of word. Did some cleanup to met requirements, worthwhile photo.
Corrected. Sting (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 21:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 18:33:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
If you do it ever in your life walking to get to this level, then you would feel that here is "special". From the observation and the information content of the surrounding topography apart. --Böhringer (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Walking has nothing to do with it, please keep your comments neutral. The nothing special concerns a to high vantage point capturing to much sky and to little foreground making viewers yearning for more. W.S. 13:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
;-) alex.vonbun (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 15:54:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bell 407
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2011 at 01:12:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 16:52:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rock face
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2011 at 18:14:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cairo, Ibn Tulun Mosque
I don't know if there's a speacial lighting at night and I'm afraid I would not come to Cairo again in the next few years. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Citron (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2011 at 04:06:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 06:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2011 at 17:36:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ursus arctos syriacus
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 06:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 01:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
I think it's the best you start the candidature new under the name "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Container Ship.jpg". --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I know these kind of shots can be hard to take because you kind of have to be lucky enough to have a surface or dock where you can take a good shot from and sometime's that not the circumstance, but still it doesn't make for good composition. A better angle would've made the lighting more impressive, too. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 16:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]