Commons:秀逸な画像の推薦

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

This project page in other languages: Alemannisch | Asturianu | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Lëtzebuergesch | Молдовеняскэ | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Português | Polski | Română | Русский | Shqip | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | Українська | 粵語 | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

Shortcut: COM:FPC

現在の候補へスキップ 現在の除外候補へスキップ

ここにある画像は秀逸な画像への候補画像です。 今日の一枚とは異なりますのでご注意ください。

[edit] 概要

[edit] 推薦にあたって

[edit] 推薦者のためのガイドライン

まずはじめに、『秀逸な画像ガイドライン』、『画像のガイドライン』をお読みください。

ここでは推薦画像の評価を受ける・する際の必要事項を要約して紹介します。

• 解像度 - 200万ピクセル以下の写真画像は、特別な理由が無い限り却下されます。1,600 x 1,200 ピクセル（1.92メガピクセル）は200万ピクセルには届いていない事にご注意ください。

コモンズに置かれた画像は一般的なＰＣモニターのみで閲覧されるとは限らず、プリントアウトや高解像度モニターで表示される可能性もあります。将来的にもどのような機器が用いられるようになるかは誰にも予想出来ないので、推薦画像が可能な限り高い解像度を保っている事は重要な事なのです。

• スキャン画像 - 公式な方針ではありませんが、Help:スキャニングページで各種様々な画像を準備するための有用なアドバイスが提供されています。

• フォーカス - 通常、重要な被写体は全て焦点が合っていなければいけません。

• 前景と背景 - 前景や背景に主題ではない物が写り込むと、それは“余計なもの”になり得ます。前景にある物が主題の重要な部分を隠していないか、背景にあるものが構図を損ねていないか（例：後ろの街灯が人物の頭の上から生えているように見える、等）を確認しましょう。

• 全体品質 - 推薦される画像には高い技術品質が要求されます。

• デジタル補正 - 見る人を欺いてはいけません。写真画像のキズ・ホコリ等を修正する、良い編集、故意に人を騙す目的でない限り、デジタル補正は一般的に歓迎されます。例を挙げると、色合い/露出補正、シャープ/ボカシ、遠近感歪み補正、トリミング（切り取り）等がこれにあたります。背景に写り込んだ余計な物を取り除く等のさらに大がかりな修正は、{{RetouchedPicture}}テンプレートを画像ページへ貼付け、修正した旨を記述しましょう。記述漏れや記述ミスがある等、主題を不正確に見せる編集は決して受け入れられません。

• 価値 - 『全ての画像の中でも特に際立ち、最も価値のある画像』が我々の大きな目標です。秀逸な画像はそれぞれの分野の中でも別格でなけらばならず、故に次の点に留意して下さい。
  • たいていの夕日は美しく見えますが、そういう画像のほとんどは他の夕日画像と大差ありません。
  • 夜景は美しいですが、普通は日中に撮影された写真の方がより詳細を見せてくれます。
  • 必ずしも『美しさに価値がある』わけではありません。

技術的側面では『露出』、『構図』、『動感表現』、『被写界深度』等を見ます。

• 露出とはシャッタースピードと絞りとの組み合わせの事を言い、適切なトーンカーブが見せる陰影〜ハイライトが有用なディティールを描写します。これをラティチュード（露光寛容度）と言い、このラティチュードの陰影〜ハイライトの領域内において、画像を暗め、中庸、明るめに作る事が出来ますが、デジタルカメラ及びデジタル画像はこのラティチュードの範囲がフィルムに比べて狭いです。ディティールの欠損した影部分は必ずしも「悪い」わけではなく、実際にその様な効果が望ましい場合（部分）もあります。ただしディティールの欠損したハイライト部分が大きく面積を占めるのは良くありません。

• 構図とは画像画面内での各要素の配置の事を言います。“三分割法”は構図作成には良い方法で、美術学校でも教えられています。まず、画像に水平線と垂直線をそれぞれ２本引き、画像を水平・垂直方向とも３分割します。主題を中央に配置するとたいていは画面に面白味を欠き、水平線と垂直線が交差する４つの交点の内どれか１つに主題を置いた方が良い画面になるでしょう。地平線は画面を半分に切ってしまうので、通常は地平線を中央に配置するべきではありません。上寄り、若しくは下寄りに配置させる方が良いでしょう。主たる考え方としては空間を上手に使い、躍動感・臨場感のある画面を作るという事です。

• 動感表現 - ここでは被写体の「動き」を表現する手法を紹介します。動きのある被写体は止まって見えるか、もしくはブレて写りますが、これらはどちらの方が良いとは必ずしも言えず、どのような表現意図を持っているかによります。「動感」は主題と共に写り込んでいる他の背景等との関係で表現されます。例えばレーシングカーの撮影。車と背景とが共に止まって見えては、見る側にスピード感は伝わってきません。　なので撮影手法によって車は画面内で止まっているように写り、かつ背景をブレさせることでスピード感が表現され、このような手法を「パンニング（流し撮り）」と呼びます。一方で、背景と共に止まって撮られた高く跳躍したバスケットボール選手は、これは決定的瞬間の「不自然」なポーズになり、これも良い写真になり得るでしょう。

• 被写界深度（DOF）とは主題の前側から後ろ側までのフォーカスエリアの事を言います。被写界深度は全ての画像で明解な意図のもと選択され、深い、または浅い被写界深度は、画像に品質を与えもし、また損なわせもします。浅い被写界深度は、主題を他の被写体から切り離し、見せたい被写体に注目を集めることが出来ます。深い被写界深度は空間を強調させる事が出来ます。広角（短焦点）レンズは深い被写界深度、逆に望遠（長焦点）レンズは浅い被写界深度が得られる傾向があります。また絞りを絞り込むと被写界深度は深く、解放すると浅い被写界深度が得られます。

グラフィック要素では形状、ボリューム、色、テクスチャー、遠近感、バランス、比率 等を見ます。

• 形状とは主題に対する輪郭線、及び形状を言います。

• ボリュームとは主題の立体感に対する品質を言います。立体感は横からのライティングで表現出来、反対に正面からのライティングは被写体を平坦に見せる傾向があり、不向きとされています。自然光の中でベストな光を得るには、早朝か、もしくは夕方の日の光が良いでしょう。

• 色は大変重要で、強すぎる色合いは好ましくありません。

• テクスチャーとは主題の表面材質の描写性に於ける品質を言います。表面材質は横からのライティングにより強調され、手に触れて伝わるかのような質感を与えます。

• 遠近感とは、画像の画面内若しくは外にある消失点で繋がる放射状の直線、これに沿った形で現れる「角度」により表現されます。

• バランスでは画像の画面内での重心が左右均衡か、若しくは片方に寄る等適切な配置が成されているかを見ます。

• 比率では画面の大きさに対する被写体の大きさを見ます。一般的に、小さな被写体は小さく写真に表現してしまう傾向にありますが、相応しい撮影手法により小さな被写体を実寸とは逆に大きく見せる事が可能です。例えば、小さな花を大きな山よりも大きく見る事が出来ます。この手法を指して「倒置法」と呼びます。

主題の全ての要素を画像に盛込む必要はありません。多くの写真はそれぞれの個性で評価出来ます。すなわち、画像の色やテクスチャー等々により判断出来ます。

• 『象徴性か妥当性か』　ー　『秀逸な画像』ではしばしばこのようなテーマで意見論争が起こる傾向にあります。技術的・品質的には出来の悪い写真でも極めて撮影困難な被写体を捉えた写真は、凡庸な被写体を写した品質的に良い写真よりも評価されます。もちろん撮影困難な被写体を写し、かつ品質も良い写真は極めて価値の高い写真と言えます。

画像は時に撮影者と評価者、若しくはどちらか片方の文化的な偏りが見られます。画像の意図は画像そのものの文化的背景により評価されるべきであり、評価者の文化的背景に依存してはいけません。イメージは人に語りかけ、そして慈しみ、怒り、拒絶、幸せ、悲しみ等の感情を喚起させる力を持っています。良い写真から与えられる心地よさには限りがありません。

画像のガイドラインを事前に読めば、あなたの推薦が成就する可能性を最大限に引き伸ばしてくれるでしょう。

[edit] 新規推薦

推薦に値する価値があると考えられる画像を作った、または見つけたならば、その画像に適切な説明とライセンスが与えられているかを確認し、以下に従ってください。

ステップ１：画像名（接頭Image:を含む）を下のテキストボックス内の文字列の後にコピー＆ペースト、正しく Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg と記入されているかを確認し、続いて『作品を推薦』ボタンをクリックします。

ステップ２：ページ編集画面上にある指示に従い必要箇所を付記、ページを保存してください。

ステップ３：ステップ２で作成したページへのリンクをFeatured picture candidates/candidate listへ手動で挿入します。ページ編集をクリックし、候補リスト最上部に以下の書式で推薦画像へのリンクを加えます。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg}}

[edit] 投票

投票には以下のテンプレートを使用します：

• {{支持}}または{{Support}} （ 支持、 Support),
• {{反対}}または{{Oppose}} （ 反対、 Oppose),
• {{中立}}または{{Neutral}} ( 中立、 Neutral),
• {{コメント}}または{{Comment}} ( コメント、 Comment),
• 情報：{{Info}} ( Info:),
• 質問：{{Question}} ( Question: ).

テンプレート{{FPX|理由}}を用いて、推薦画像が秀逸な画像の推薦に相応しくない旨を指摘出来ます。テンプレートの「理由」部分に、秀逸な画像には明確に値しない事の説明を書き加えます（可能ならば英語で）。

あなたが何故その画像を好むか、または好まないか、特に( Supportや( Opposeの投票をする際は簡単な理由を加えましょう。また署名（~~~~）も忘れずに。匿名投票は受け付けられません。

[edit] 秀逸な画像からの除外

時も経ればやがて『秀逸な画像』の基準も変わります。かつては“充分に価値に値する”と決定されたであろう画像も、その価値は普遍ではありません。ここでは「もはや『秀逸な画像』に値しない」と考えられる画像をリストアップします。リストされた画像へは、{{Keep}}  Keep 及び {{維持}} 維持 （＝『秀逸な画像』に値する）、または{{Delist}}  Delist 及び {{除外}} 除外 （＝『秀逸な画像』に値しない）を投票します。

あなたが『秀逸な画像』の価値基準に値しないと考える画像があれば、除外候補として提出できます。除外したい画像の画像名（接頭Image:を含む）を下のテキストボックスの文字列の後にコピー＆ペーストします。

あなたが作成した新規除外候補のページに以下を加えます。

• 画像の作者、投稿者等の出所情報。
• その画像の“過去の秀逸な画像への推薦”ページへのリンク（画像ページの「リンク節」に表示されています）。
• あなたが除外と考える理由とあなたの署名。

次に、Commons:Featured picture candidates/removalを編集し、下記の書式で作成した除外候補のページのリンクを手動で最上段に挿入します。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:除外画像名.jpg}}

[edit] 秀逸な画像の候補での方針

[edit] 総則

1. 投票期間を終えた後、結果は推薦日時から数えて10日後（下記タイムテーブル参照）に決定します。投票期間は推薦日時から数えて9日と23時間59分です。１０日、またはそれを超えた投票はカウントされません。
2. 匿名寄稿者による推薦を歓迎します。
3. 匿名寄稿者による議論への参加を歓迎します。
4. 匿名寄稿者による投票はカウントされません。
5. 推薦者票は投票へはカウントされません。支持は明示的かつ言明される必要があります。
6. 推薦者は自身の推薦をいつでも取り下げる事が出来ます。推薦を取り下げるには "I withdraw my nomination" （推薦を取り下げます）と書くか、テンプレート {{withdraw|~~~~}} を加えます。
7. ウィキメディア・コモンズのプロジェクトの目的は、全てのウィキメディアプロジェクト（将来的なプロジェクト含む）に於いて自由に利用可能な画像を集積するセントラル・データベースを提供することである、ということを忘れないでください。セントラル・データベースは単純にウィキメディアの保管庫と言うわけではなく、また『秀逸な画像』等のプロジェクトに応じた判断をされるべきではありません。
8. 推薦日から数えて５日間支持を受けられなかった画像（推薦者票含まず）は候補リストから外されます。（下記タイムテーブル参照）
9. テンプレート{{FPX}}が貼られた画像は、テンプレート{{FPX}}の適用後は推薦者以外の支持票が無い限り、48時間後に候補リストから外されます。

[edit] 秀逸と除外のルール

候補画像は下記必要事項に準じて秀逸な画像に認定されます。

1. 適切なライセンス情報が添付されている。
2. 最低５票以上の支持票を得ている。
3. 支持：反対比率が2:1 (賛成が3分の2の過半数)以上である。
4. ２つの同様な画像での異なったバージョンは同時に『秀逸な画像』へは認定されず、より支持票の多かった一枚を認定します。

除外ルールでは、投票期間、及びリストから外される期間は秀逸ルールと同じ期間を取ります。除外候補提出後５日間で提出者以外の  Delist（ 除外）票が得られなかった候補は、５日間ルールが適用され、候補リストから外されます。

常連ユーザーが推薦・投票の完了方法に従って、推薦投票を閉じることがあります。終了方法に関してはCommons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finishedを参照。

[edit] 何よりも礼儀を忘れずに

どうか、あなたが評価するその画像が「人の作品」であることを忘れないでください。「これはヒドイ」、「こんなのキライだ」と言ったような表現は避けましょう。もしあなたが『反対』に票を投じなければならないのなら、思いやりを忘れずに。また、あなたの話す英語は、また誰か他の人の話す英語とは同じではないでしょう。慎重に言葉を選んでください。

それでは良い評価を。そして、全てのルールは壊すことが出来るという事を忘れないでください。

[edit] 関連項目

• 候補リストの編集はこちら：Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list
• 日付順秀逸な画像リスト：Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological
• 秀逸な画像候補アーカイブ：Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log
• 推薦・投票の完了方法：Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished
• 基礎英語による写真・画像用語解説
• 秀逸な画像の候補リスト
• Photography critiques（画像評論）
• Help:スキャニング

[edit] 目次

Contents 1 概要 1.1 推薦にあたって 1.1.1 推薦者のためのガイドライン 1.1.2 新規推薦 1.2 投票 1.3 秀逸な画像からの除外 1.4 秀逸な画像の候補での方針 1.4.1 総則 1.4.2 秀逸と除外のルール 1.5 何よりも礼儀を忘れずに 1.6 関連項目 2 目次 3 秀逸な画像の候補 3.1 File:Procyon lotor (Linnaeus 1758).jpg 3.2 File:Mercedes SL 500 front.JPG 3.3 File:Australian Flag Flying animated.gif 3.4 File:University Hall Northwestern.jpg 3.5 File:US Navy gas mask excerise 021015-N-6996M-589.jpg 3.6 File:Mosquito Tasmania.jpg 3.7 File:Astrid Vockert - Projekt Landtag edited.jpg 3.8 File:Torre del homenaje.jpg 3.9 File:RSD-10 2009 G1.jpg 3.10 File:Rub' al Khali (Arabian Empty Quarter) sand dunes imaged by Terra (EOS AM-1).jpg 3.11 File:Kardo-lenin-kopia.jpg 3.12 File:Secret Service WMG.jpg 3.13 File:Yiddish WWI poster2.jpg 3.14 File:Buteo magnirostris -Goias -Brazil-8.jpg, featured 3.15 File:Woodbridge isothermal chart3.jpg 3.16 File:House wren - food drops.ogv 3.17 File:RhB Bernina-Express am Lago Bianco.jpg 3.18 File:Julian Alps with Prisojnik and Razor.jpg 3.19 File:CoA Città di Milano.svg 3.20 File:Etna eruption seen from the International Space Station.jpg 3.21 File:A surfer in the air.jpg 3.22 File:Macaca sylvanus feet and hands.JPG 3.23 File:Nk1046349362-20061210-hd.jpg 3.24 File:Path on water Nanjing.jpg 3.25 File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg 3.26 File:Cathedral of Learning stitch 1.jpg 3.27 File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3348-19 Huizen aan het water in Coronie, vermo2.jpg 3.28 File:A pond with reflection in Golden Gate Park 2.jpg 3.29 File:Family George V of Hanover.jpg, featured 3.30 File:Sean Astin 1.jpg, featured 3.31 File:ComputerHotline - Water droplets (by) (1).jpg, not featured 3.32 File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-6 (by).JPG, not featured 3.33 File:Ocean Beach in San Francisco at sunrise.jpg, not featured 3.33.1 Edit 1 cut off "the left dark side" 4 秀逸除外候補 4.1 File:Brombeerlaub.jpg 5 タイムテーブル (推薦から5日後) 6 タイムテーブル (推薦から10日後)

[edit] 秀逸な画像の候補

ページキャッシュを消去

[edit] File:Procyon lotor (Linnaeus 1758).jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2009 at 22:23:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. --99of9 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mercedes SL 500 front.JPG

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2009 at 15:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by S 400 HYBRID - uploaded by S 400 HYBRID - nominated by 320td -- 320td (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very good picture. -- 320td (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support gestochen scharf und wirklich realistisch. außerdem nicht verzerrt wie fast alle Auto-Bilder auf der wiki dazu gehören auch viele bilder von S40 Hybrid oder wie er auch heißt. -- Luft+ (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Belle. Mais pourquoi la voiture parque à l'arrière-plan? Au total cette image est excellente. -- Autofan45 (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Jag tycker tycker det ser lite artificiellt ut at censurera nummerplåten, och den avhuggna bilen i bakgrunden är störande. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow. That's my picture nominated here. Thanks a lot for it. Thinking that that is my best picture I hope that it will be a featured picture. -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition: second car in the background distracts. --99of9 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support In my opinion the picture has a sense. In the background we can see the little brother of the SL the SLK. So, I mean this composition is organized very well. For me this picture is also a featured picture because there are not so many good pictures at wiki like this. --Lukas.zz (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment If the second car is also a subject (which sounds fair enough), then I would prefer it was not chopped at the top. --99of9 (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Weak support. Since so many languages have appeared here... Sama obecność automobilu w tle nie wydaje mi się wadą godną sprzeciwu, jednakowoż fakt, iż wzmiankowany automobil ma ścięty dach, jest z pewnością niejakim minusem rzeczonej fotografii. Wolf (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Australian Flag Flying animated.gif

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2009 at 11:18:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support as nominator -- 99of9 (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This is cool. -- JovanCormac 12:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ce n'est pas assez exclusive. -- Autofan45 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Info: As far as I know it is the only animated gif flag on commons that was not computer generated. --99of9 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Too few frames, could have been much smoother. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • And much heavier, and not possible due to the FPS limit on most DSLRs. Diti the penguin — 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:University Hall Northwestern.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2009 at 05:32:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: University Hall, Northwestern University Author - Madcoverboy - nominated by Anon -- 122.169.82.44 05:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Crop is terrible. -- JovanCormac 07:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Image is not centred on the building and the crop is poor. Image is tilted more to left side of the building. --Korman (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose crop --Leafnode✉ 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose unusual perspective. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ce n'est pas bien. Pardon. -- Autofan45 (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:US Navy gas mask excerise 021015-N-6996M-589.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2009 at 08:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Shane T. McCoy (US Navy) - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: The yellow attachment is a MILES. And yes, I'm aware of the large space on the right, but I think the picture benefits from the off centre composition. Feel free to disagree. :P
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support WOWWWW --Muhammad (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing composition. -- JovanCormac 09:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Enough to get on your POTY list? :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    • That's what I thought as well, though the mosquito below is also a good candidate. -- JovanCormac 11:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too noisy 4 me. —kallerna™ 11:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, considering that he's walking around in cloud of smoke, some noise is to be expected... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Regretfull oppose i like military photos, but this really too noised. :( -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I hate image noise, but in this special case I think it actually enhances the image, since it looks like the soldier is walking through dirty, green fog. -- JovanCormac 15:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree about the noise. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. Noise adds to this image.--Silversmith Hewwo 21:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good composition of a subject that is quite tricky to photograph. Jopparn (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mosquito Tasmania.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 23:52:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. -- ZooFari 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support More disgusting than nice. Noting the abdomen swollen with blood. I hope you killed it. ;) Durova (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support like Durova, disgusting but also wow! -- Ra'ike T C 08:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support One of our better macros. Resolution is acceptable given the high magnification. -- JovanCormac 09:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Disgusting WOW ;-) Great macro! --Cesco77 (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I do get some Dexter-feelings from this one! Very good! Jopparn (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Astrid Vockert - Projekt Landtag edited.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 22:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Mathias Schindler - uploaded by Mathias Schindler - nominated by Durova with minor shadow/highlight edits -- Durova (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Weak support Amazingly detailed portrait, but I could do without the blown background and the cut off collar. -- JovanCormac 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose the crop and the background and the 0 wow factor. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Silversmith --AngMoKio (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose "Media needing categories as of 24 November 2009" —kallerna™ 11:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment So I fixed it, and you could have as well.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Strong Support this is a quality picture of a German politician. Wikimedians have reached out and went to the parliament to make these pictures. These are not American politicians and they deserve equal respect. These pictures have additional value because of the effort involved.. An additional reason to support this image. I strongly urge the nay sayers to reconsider. GerardM (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I took the original image, so I will not comment on the nomination itself. However, I fail to see how the points you raised have anything to do with the quality of the image. It shouldn't really matter who took the image under what circumstance. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC) and since there will be roughly 500 images coming from up to 100 members of parliament, taken by 4 Wikipedians, you might just want to wait until the upload is finished. Again this would not be a statement on quality, just on procedure. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Background. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• I withdraw my nomination Durova (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

---

.

[edit] File:Torre del homenaje.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 16:14:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Qoan - uploaded by Qoan - nominated by Qoan -- Qoan (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Qoan (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Only a little foreground in shown making orientation less easy. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow ... looks like any other old stone tower. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much vignetting, and it's very soft in the edges. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose vignetting, composition, perspective --Leafnode✉ 08:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:RSD-10 2009 G1.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 12:19:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: All by George Chernilevsky ^talk -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: SS-20 Saber a.k.a. RSD-10 Pioneer . Intermediate-range (Europe-range) Soviet ballistic missile with 3 nuclear warheads.
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Theoretically a fine subject, but the composition is relatively poor (distractions, background objects, shade etc.). —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Anonymous. Sigmund Freud would love this, though. -- JovanCormac 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good resolution, good quality, high EV, and I cannot think how it could have been photographed with a better composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Distracting objects and the nose-cone of an aircraft in the background. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ack Snowmanradio --AngMoKio (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Umnik (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Other object in background is too distracting. --Korman (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose distracting background - too deep DoF, could have had more space. --Leafnode✉ 08:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rub' al Khali (Arabian Empty Quarter) sand dunes imaged by Terra (EOS AM-1).jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 06:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team - uploaded by Elipongo - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Who knew sand could be so reflective?
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Fantastic view! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great image, I had considered nominating it myself once. Observe that the "water" between the dunes is of course actually air. -- JovanCormac 07:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jovan, it is not a mirage. One cannot see a mirage looking down like that. Here's a good place to learn about mirages.What we are seeing here is rather an optical illusion I guess.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an air reflection, similar to the phenomenon called a "Highway mirage", which is described in the article Mirage (even though it arguable doesn't fulfill the classical definition of Mirage being = Fata Morgana). -- JovanCormac 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is no air reflection! There are many little salt lakes between the dunes dry or filled with saltwater. Look a long time to the enlarged image: You can see, the salt lakes are lying in holes between the dunes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be that, it might also be the "Typical pale gravel plains" mentioned in the WP article on the en:Rub' al Khali. I do think I see reflections of clouds there, though. Strange that the NASA page doesn't explain the phenomenon. -- JovanCormac 15:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a former river delta with brown yardangs between the small arms of the former river. The delta is now oversaltet and contains many little hypersaline lakes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Question: Why didn't you? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't quite remember. I think I nominated File:Oil platform P-51 (Brazil).jpg instead, and then forgot to nominated the Rub al Khali picture later. In fact, I only remembered when I saw this candidate. -- JovanCormac 08:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Kosiarz-PL 09:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I wish I saw it in real life :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not sure how you'd get back down though... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well I meant I wish I were able to see it from above, let's say from ISS :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Lovely as an abstraction, too. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow. Durova (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support 99of9 (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kardo-lenin-kopia.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2009 at 15:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: Dmitry Kardovsky. «V. I. Lenin in Gorki village, of Pereslavl uezd». 1926. — Created, uploaded and nominated by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC) -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment "Source: Own work"??? Please supply more detail. -- JovanCormac 22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This photo is my own work. Clarified at the file description.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose it does not look like a photo and the justification or the explanation of the "own work" may explain things but it unreadable to me. GerardM (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry? It's a photo of the picture on the wall, of about 4*2 meters size. The picture is by Kardovsky, published in 1926; the photo is by myself, made in 2009. Where is the mess?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Secret Service WMG.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2009 at 20:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: Secret service by William Gillette , 1897. - uploaded by Barun - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Barun (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wholly undocumented attempt at restoration on this image, broken source link at upload page. Appears to be a good faith attempt, though. Would gladly work with the nominator toward a viable nomination. Durova (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Yiddish WWI poster2.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2009 at 07:34:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Charles Edward Chambers - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Yiddish WWI poster.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: World War I era poster in Yiddish. Translation: "Food will win the war - You came here seeking freedom, now you must help to preserve it - Wheat is needed for the allies - waste nothing".
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Of course. Takabeg (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good restoration work. Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Of course. -- JovanCormac 14:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore Wow! Thank you! --Phyrexian (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Buteo magnirostris -Goias -Brazil-8.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 20:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Wagner Machado Carlos Lemes - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by - Snowmanradio (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support nice hawk, nice colours -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I wish that there weren't so many distracting elements in the bottom-left, though. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, Nixón^〃 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support WOW. Takabeg (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 10:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ianaré (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore Very beautiful. --Phyrexian (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good angle, composition and background. Feather barbs are visible. Please add to Buteo magnirostris. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Added to gallery on species page. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support SQUAAAAWWWWWWWK!!!! Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great foto of eagle with nice colours. --Korman (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with Walter Siegmund. Jopparn (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Woodbridge isothermal chart3.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 18:43:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by William Channing Woodbridge - uploaded by Jujutacular - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Woodbridge isothermal chart.jpg by Jujutacular and Durova -- Durova (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Historic map of the world that shows Alexander von Humboldt's isothermal lines. Published 1823.
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good job. Takabeg (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Happy to support the restoration of this map :) Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's fascinating to see that even in 1823, there were "white spots" on the map, and Canada was largely unknown as well. -- JovanCormac 07:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore Really fascinating... --Phyrexian (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:House wren - food drops.ogv

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 17:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by qmnonic - uploaded by Kozuch - nominated by Kozuch -- Kozuch (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kozuch (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Pity for the resolution, but the quality, educativeness and rarity of this free video gets my support! Diti the penguin — 19:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I intentionally uploaded the lower resolution even as HD is available (because of people with low bandwidth). There is no problem to upload the HD version, you can watch it on Flickr for now. As there are close to no official rules for video now, I just did not know how to behave, whether to do low-res or high-res. --Kozuch (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Low resolution (of course: low to a reasonable scale) is better, because of the bandwith. Remember that you aren't very likely to put an 800px wide video into an article. And even if you insert it as, say, 480px, it won't increase the speed of loading anyway. Wolf (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, so I suppose current 640×360 pixels is not a real low-res for a video. If someone thinks this cant get featured at this resolution, I will upload HD.--Kozuch (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I suspect in the long term we'll want high res, just as we do for photos. It can't be that hard to produce scaled down versions, but it's impossible to scale up. 99of9 (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's a rare sight that someone dares to nominate anything but a static picture here. Great quality! -- JovanCormac 07:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - High educational value and interesting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I think the first two seconds should be cut from the video. There's nothing happening, really. -- JovanCormac 20:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the video is not too long and doesn't need to be cut, is less than 30 seconds, and the first two are precious: you can hear the bird and begin to understand what is the subject --Phyrexian (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Right, its very educational and interesting, but this is commons and not wikipedia. And for videos the same rules should apply as for pictures. The composition is rather boring --Simonizer (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you completely miss a point here. There is no language and that means this video is nicely useful accross various projects and languages, that makes it uniques for a Commons (featured) candidate.--Kozuch (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. I don't think you can see anything well enough - the bird is tiny, and we can't even see it feeding the chicks, just going into the box. It's nice, but not quite wow enough. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore As Jovan --Phyrexian (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - As Simonizer, common video not close to FP status. I also have some doubts as whether videos should be evaluated here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunatelly dedicated process for video does not exist yet. --Kozuch (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Silversmith. 99of9 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:RhB Bernina-Express am Lago Bianco.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 22:09:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Two multiple units hauling the narrow gauge Bernina Express over the alps, at Lago Bianco. The picture was taken more than 2200 meters above sea level.
•  Support -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wolf (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Das Problem des Bildes ist, dass der Bernina-Express als Hauptsache zur Nebensache wird. Das Bild ist groß genug, dass Du das Nebensächliche entfernen kannst. Vom See darf nur ein schmaler Streifen mit der Spiegelung des Zuges stehen bleiben, und auch vom Himmel kann ziemlich viel entfernt werden. Die Mindestgröße des Bildes (über 2 Millionen Pixel) muss erhalten bleiben. Dann hat der Zug mehr "Bodenhaftung", und das Panoramabild verstärkt die Wirkung des langen Zuges. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Vielen Dank für die gute Rückmeldung, ich werde es mir für nächstes mal merken! (vielleicht sollte ich doch mal einen Kurs besuchen, bei dem man lernt, auf solche Dinge zu achten...) Diese Nomination werde ich jetzt aber nicht mehr ändern, bringt wohl nicht mehr viel. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Julian Alps with Prisojnik and Razor.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 13:54:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversaturated, also resolution is too low for a landscape shot IMO. -- JovanCormac 15:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Jovan, this image has the colours and the saturation of the former Kodachrome 25 film. I worked with Kodachrome 25 in the years 1974–2001 and know what I say. Kodachrome 25 has been one of the best films with great sharpness, and I try to bring the Kodachrome 25 feeling into the digitally world. Maybe you worked in the past with other films and likes therefore another feeling with soft colours and saturation, but that is your own window to the world of photography and is ok for your own images. - This image has the resolution 2,602 × 1,645 pixels (4.28029 pixels), that's more than the double of the needed 2 million pixels. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, after seeing this Kodachrome picture I'll have to say you're probably right, the saturation seems to be a feature of that specific film, though I would consider that image on the verge to being overexposed as well. Nevertheless, I believe that photography (especially landscape photography) should mirror reality as closely as possible, and I've certainly never seen grass as green as it is in your candidate shot. If I understood you correctly, this is a digital image that you edited to look like it was taken with the Kodachrome film. If that is the case, it should be clearly marked as auch ("retouched" template).
      As for the resolution, this is a matter of personal taste; I myself believe that landscape shots should have at least 6-8 Megapixels unless they are absolutely spectacular. -- JovanCormac 08:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I retract my vote of "Oppose", the color issues have now been corrected AFAIC. Still don't know whether to support, though. The view is rather ordinary. -- JovanCormac 07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Actually leaning toward oppose due to the tight crop, but I do have an unhealthy-powerful zeal for giant photostitched landscapes, so I think that's probably influencing my opinion too much. —Notyourbroom (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition --Leafnode✉ 14:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Leafnode, what is your problem with my composition? Please see this Featured picture. It has the same composition. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    And as it could be expected, I don't like the composition of the second photo either. And now why - horizon is in the middle, and as a consequence in this particular shot there's too much of the bottom part - even grass is rather boring. IMO this picture would be better with some cropping. --Leafnode✉ 12:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support, very nice landscape. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, IMO bit boring composition. —kallerna™ 21:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: I made an update, cropped the Blumenwiese and made the green colour of the grass light. The "Blumenwiese" is an essential part of the high mountain region of Europa and IMO an important part of this image. Therefore I leaved a part of it. I didn't found any word for the "Blumenwiese" in the English language. JovanCormac, Leafnode and Kallerna, I hope, the colour and the composition is now ok. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Weak Support. I like it - almost perfect. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great composition. You want to walk into it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice foto of mother nature. No oversaturation of colors and great composition. --Korman (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support good composition for me and nice landscape --Pudelek (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CoA Città di Milano.svg

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 09:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Fale - uploaded by Fale - nominated by Fale -- Fale (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Coat of Arms of Milan city (Italy)
•  Support -- Fale (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support – Molto ben fatto. --Ernie (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose A valued image for sure, but not nearly as spectacular as this recent nomination. -- JovanCormac 15:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Contrario Purtroppo devo concordare con Jovan, ma se puoi continua a creare gli stemmi dei comuni italiani con questo livello di accuratezza, ne abbiamo bisogno su Wikipedia ;-). I have to agree with Jovan, by the way please continue creating CoA with this high graphic level of italian municipalities, we need it on Wikipedia ;-) --Phyrexian (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Etna eruption seen from the International Space Station.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 07:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by Bricktop - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Simply amazing.
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

---

Whoops, forgot to denoise first. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have to disagree. Looking at the noise I am quite sure a lot of detail will be lost due to noise reduction. The picture is fine the way it is and noise is just natural. --Ernie (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll let the nomination run it course. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support A lot of educational value in a difficult photo to reproduce. --99of9 (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Like Ernie, I think that denoising would only hurt this picture. -- JovanCormac 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Ultra-rare shot! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose I know it's hyper-rare shot and so on, but the noise is just too much for me. NASA can make better photos (even though this was taken in 2002). —kallerna™ 21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore Fantastica! Too educational value and rarity to care about quality, that is not so bad... --Phyrexian (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Peripitus (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:A surfer in the air.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 20:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive, and much better post-processing than the other similar nomination. I would still like to see full resolution, if this is a downsample. --S23678 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support quite a capture. Durova (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral great capture, but I don't like the composition. --Leafnode✉ 15:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support excepionally! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose strange photo, not in COM:PS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It is being used in an article on en.wikipedia - so is in scope.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • There are thousands of the images on Commons that are not used in any project, which most of the time does not mean they are out of the scope. What is out of scope here is the oppose vote of kuiper, who opposed not the image, but me personally. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I find the concept that this image is "out of scope" simply bizarre I'm afraid. This is action photography of a sport. I look forward to seeing the deletion request removing all such images. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose IMO the composition is awkward - the surfer is too close to the right edge of the image.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Well captured, but in a FP surf's photo I prefere action --Cesco77 (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is not an action shot, I do not know what is.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • This is an action shot of surfing. The surfer is on the board and is making a manouvre. Your image isn't bad, but isn't good to illustrate this sport well. --Cesco77 (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying your position! I cannot agree with you. For wxample, please take a look at that image File:Surfer in santa cruz 14.jpg. It is of a a surfer exiting a closeout. So the nominated shot is an action shot, and it is what I observe quite often. Please take a look at one more image File:A surfer in the air 2.jpg--Mbz1 (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I understand your position, but wipeout isn't the best moment in this sport to take a picture, for me. The two surf pictures you have upload and featured, are simply perfect (this and this), but this one don't have the same quality IMO --Cesco77 (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support clear sport photo in action -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment. Shows the wave better than the surfer. To me it looks like the individual in the picture is falling of the board, so I think that the wrong moment is captured for a FA. If not, perhaps the surfing manoeuvre could be illustrated better in a video. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course he's falling of the board. They all usually do in the end :) It is a normal , and usual part of surfing. We already have few FP images of surfers on the board. It would have been nice to have one out, and btw IMO to show a surfer without the wave is not nearly as interesting. The wave by itself has EV. A surfer provdides a great scale for the wave, which makes EV of the image only higher.BTW what "FA" stands for in your comment above?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, I think that the image description should say that he is falling off the board. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Info: The image's description is corrected, the situation is explained, now you could take out your oppose vote :)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I see that the image description has been amended to explain the picture better. I have changed my additions above to a comment, and I might vote again later when I have considered the image again. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In any case I'd like to thank you for helping me to improve the image's decription :) --Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I don't understand the out of scope comment (above). I found no other pictures on Commons with the surfer in the air that shows the underside of the board clearly. It appears to have high illustrative merit, is probably difficult to repeat, and meets the other criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Mainly for the composition, but also that most of it is a bit blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. As above, mainly composition problems. --Karel (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Macaca sylvanus feet and hands.JPG

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 19:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Grez - uploaded by Grez - nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Decent level of quality, but if it's meant to illustrate the feet and hands (per the image's title), it does a relatively poor job due to the way the monkey is positioned. On the other hand, this is a photograph of a wild creature which is an understandably difficult subject. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nk1046349362-20061210-hd.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 11:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Stougard - uploaded by Stougard - nominated by Erin Silversmith -- Silversmith Hewwo 11:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Silversmith Hewwo 11:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support WOW --Cesco77 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Tiny resolution, but what a picture! -- JovanCormac 12:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Well captured dramatic action. --99of9 (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 15:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Request: Could geolocation of the image be provided please.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • And it could be renamed. —kallerna™ 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Don't forget about the {{Geo}} template ;) —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, but it has to be renamed. Wolf (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose for the file name and the poor quality of the description page. It would be great to have a species name and a geolocation tag, and why is there essentially an extra license in the "Permission" field? —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Also, what's happening here? Has the pelican just landed? It is flying away? Is it just flapping while floating in the water? This would also be nice to know on the description page. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ianaré (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: The name is now File:Pelecanus crispus-Nk1046349362-20061210-hd.jpg and the description is Dalmatian Pelican washing. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Path on water Nanjing.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 09:18:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Stougard - uploaded by Stougard - nominated by Erin Silversmith -- Silversmith Hewwo 09:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Silversmith Hewwo 09:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support – Over-sharpened! I doubt I would vote for it if it was in color. --Ernie (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't support desaturated color pictures. Post the color picture instead; if someone wants to see it desaturated, he or she can to so with a single click in Photoshop. But posting desaturated already simply robs the picture of color information without giving anything back in return. -- JovanCormac 12:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Harsh contrast (left-hand side), confusing composition, bad crop.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose This one would benefit from colours. Oversharpened. —kallerna™ 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per the several above points. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very ordinary picture IMO, sorry. --S23678 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose poorly desaturated picture, also bad contrast and composition. --Leafnode✉ 15:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 08:05:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Jarod Hodge (US Navy) - uploaded by Cobatfor - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like this picure. But the resolution is too low. Takabeg (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment What? It's over 12Mpx! How much larger do you want it to be?! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • And you supported this one, which is one third the size! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes I sopport Spider Nephila clavata 0911.jpg. The resolution of that picture is enough. Bu in this picture the shapes of planes aren't sharp. Takabeg (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Resolution is low or file size? --Muhammad (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice --Muhammad (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! Quality is not ideal, however as a whole it is fantastic view. Rare shot -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Weak SupportMaybe Takabeg is talking about the fact that none of the planes is very focused and there are also a lot of artefacts, especially in the sky.--Silversmith Hewwo 11:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Suggestive and rare image --Cesco77 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Great picture, but spoilt by overzealous JPEG compression. 1.22 MB for 12 Mpix is simply ridiculous, and it shows. JPEG artifacts are all over the picture. -- JovanCormac 12:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Nice composition, but too much JPEG artifacts and noise IMO. —kallerna™ 15:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition is great of course, but the quality is really bad due to the high compression. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great combination --JuergenKlueser (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality issues, per Daniel, especially in the top portion of the sky. Given this was a photo ops, I see no mitigating reasons for the quality not being better. --S23678 (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose due to the quality related compression. Even at reasonable resolution (screen size) the clouds above Mt Fuji just look wrong with what looks like lots of posterisation. - Peripitus (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose with heavy heart, but I have to oppose because of a poor quality --Leafnode✉ 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow. --Lošmi (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support When I saw the thumbnail at first I thought it was fake - impossible! 99of9 (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: What's so impossible about it? Rare, certainly, but not impossible. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Obviously I was wrong. It just wowed me. --99of9 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Distracting and irrelevant background. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Irrelevant background? That's Mount Fuji you're talkin' about. I vote for this picture particularly for that reason, because it reminds me on modern version of Hokusai's series Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji. --Lošmi (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cathedral of Learning stitch 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 02:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by User:Notyourbroom. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: This is the current valued image of the Cathedral of Learning, a Great Depression-era Late Gothic Revival skyscraper in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
•  Support as nominator. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  NeutralI'm not convinced by the lighting/point of view/time of the day combination. Architectural features are difficult to see, given the angle at which we see them. Right side of the building has less perspective distortion but is in the shadow, and thus dimmer. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)vote striken by MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment There are only perhaps two angles from which a relatively-unobstructed shot may be obtained- remember, this is a skyscraper in an urban environment. Also, when the building is uniformly well-lit, it appears exceptionally bland and "flat." For comparison on these points, see this alternate version. My intention with the submitted shot was (1) to illustrate the structure in a way which would not confound the viewer with other buildings in the frame, as well as (2) to use the angle of lighting to my advantage to reveal the volume and ornamental nuances of the building, rather than leaving it to appear homogeneous and flat. In a sense, I am not attempting to photograph a structure, per se, but an art style or a design philosophy, and I am trying to do so in a way that will not confound the viewer with extraneous details. (Crazypaco, an expert on this structure, articulated a similar analysis in his review of the photograph for valued image.) I hope that this helps to clarify my decisions. —Notyourbroom (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these details and explanations. I agree that the alternate view you provided almost looks like a cardboard cutout of the building itself, whereas this view actually shows the intricate volumes that comprises this tower. Is it one of the best views one can get of this structure? I'm willing to think so. Is it superior to many others we can see on Commons and elsewhere? Once again, I'd think so. Is it thus a featured picture, a valuable picture, or something else ? Well, I don't know... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support per the explanation provided by Notyourbroom --Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Voters may also find it instructive to see more of Crazypaco's assessment and comparison of these two images (stitch 1 and stitch 2) here on my talk page. And for fun, here is what it looks like in typical rainy Pittsburgh weather. ;) —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I really do like the contrasts in the composition : that imposing, grey, and, to some extent, scary architecture presented in such a vivid and empty blue sky, and surprisingly green surroundings (very cartoon-like). Everything fits in place. Bravo. --S23678 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just barely acceptable quality in my view, but the lighting leaves much to be desired. Return just before sunset (or just after sunrise) for a better picture. I'd keep the same composition. Noodle snacks (talk)
  • Thank you for the suggestion—I may try that. I believe that sunset would be better than sunrise for this angle (because sunrise would provide almost full front-lighting), but in either case, it is now too late in the year to capture the lawn and trees in a non-dormant state. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3348-19 Huizen aan het water in Coronie, vermo2.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 22:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3348-19 Huizen aan het water in Coronie, vermo.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Nineteenth century watercolor of a coastal settlement in Suriname.
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Garden. 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Fine. But I've never been to Coronie. Takabeg (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful. -- JovanCormac 07:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- GerardM (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:A pond with reflection in Golden Gate Park 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 16:11:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info:everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Leafnode✉ 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Please provide a reason for opposing.--Moise Nicu (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  Sure. There's no clear subject of this picture. Most of the picture is blurry. Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed (just like the rock in the bottom-right). Sorry, but I don't see any single feature of this picture that could fit in featured picture guidelines. --Leafnode✉ 19:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  "Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed" Hahaha. It is really funny :), and I cannot agree more, I really mean it . Yet I still like the image because it is all about shadows and light, and the light was really amazing! About the sharpness. Of course the image is not sharp because it is reflection, yet it is a rare reflection because one could see every individulal leaf.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Nice shot. --Moise Nicu (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  OpposeBlurry and nothing exceptional. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Erin. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is reflection. Have you ever seen a sharp reflection? Not all images should be sharp. Some just should be beautiful.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is beautiful as it is rather murky. Also, the leaves which aren't reflections are blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I know we have a very different ideas what is and what is not beautiful. So far you have opposed few of my images, and never supported any. The image is as sharp as it gets in such situation. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think a reflection can't be sharp? --AngMoKio (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the water should be absolutely still in order for the reflection to be sharp, and it is really rare. Please take a look at that image (not mine) [1]. See how sharp the mountain is and the reflection is not so. If you have a sample of the image with a sharp reflection in a natural body of water I'd be interested to see one please. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This has to do with on what you focus and the shutter speed you chose. Right now i don't have such a picture at hand but I am sure a google search can give you a lot. Your photo was made with a shutter speed of 1/20, this way the reflection can't get sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That particular reflection was not sharp, wnen I looked at it with my own eyes.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

•  NeutralQuality is good, but chaotic composition for me. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose for some reason the (dirty) water does not seem to be level; the duck's head is just a black blob. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO "dirty" water still is much better than dirty people.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose, as above. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as above too. Composition is poor. --Korman (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Family George V of Hanover.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 22:15:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Julius Giere (1807-1880) - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The caption in the bottom margin (see annotation) is faded and illegible. I think it should either be removed or restored. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Thank you, Notyourbroom, I removed the illegible inscription. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I strike my opposition. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mer30.Takabeg (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sean Astin 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:19:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: Actor Sean Astin (Rudy, Lord of the Rings, The Goonies etc.). Photo created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
•  Support --Dschwen (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's true that we don't have enough good portraits, but the quality is everything but stellar. Even the face isn't entirely in focus, and there is significant image noise in the background. -- JovanCormac 10:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Significant image noise in the background? That's a bit too picky in my opinion. Noise/grain has always been a part of photography and always will be. Even high-end digital cameras produce noise at their lowest ISO/ASA settings. Personally I prefer noise over any smeary NR. Noise reduction always means some detail and color will be lost. Demanding noise-freeness is simply unrealistic. --Ernie (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral – I like it, but it really is slightly out of focus. Or is it motion blur from shooting at 1/50 sec. when zoomed in to 150mm? --Ernie (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support (weakly) I agree that it looks slightly out of focus. Otherwise, it's excellent. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Peripitus (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with JovanCormac. --Karel (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:07:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral It's a beautiful image, but I don't like the fact that the lighting is artificial. (Full resolution shows a rectangular light source reflected in the droplets) —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Flash-gun or not. I have to oppose the composition. It simply does not strike me as a featured picture. --Ernie (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Easy target, not the best result. —kallerna™ 15:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-6 (by).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 16:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Could you please describe what this is exactly? Wolf (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: It's some water droplets on spider web. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Silly me... Wolf (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wolf (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose not much stuff in focus. --Dschwen (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutrale Ireally like it, but Dschwen is right after all... --Phyrexian (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ocean Beach in San Francisco at sunrise.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 19:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I would support if there was not that red thing (is it lens flare, I don't know) on the top of the image. As well, the sky shows some levels of posterization. Are you using your RAWs and converting to JPEG only at the last step, since it's not the first time I see this issue in your nominations, or it's only from post-processing?

I cropped out the red thing. If you add notes to posterization I will try to fix it, but I am not sure where it is.Is it all over the sky or only in a few places? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember how large my previous note was, but that red flare (I'll call it flare, without knowing exactly what it is) is still very visible below the sky/mountain transition on the red side. As for the new crop, from comparing with the previous image, I feel something important is missing in the composition of the image. Rather than being part of the scene as previously, the cliff is becoming more an intrusive element in the picture. For posterizating, I don't consider it a "pass or fail" issue here since it's barely visible, but it could be a point to improve on for future nominations. As for where it is, it's all over the sky. Just more the image from left to right at full zoom to see some Colour banding where we would normally see a nice gradient (and I'm not talking about the clouds themselves). Finally, is this a downsample or a crop? --S23678 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to fix it once again.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing has been well done at some places, but not at other, as per the new notes. The darkening of the sky caused the picture to lost a lot of it's charm as well. Fixing a problem creates other ones, I'll make you stop doing edits, and I'll just abstain from voting. --S23678 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose. Nothing very distinct. Too dark. --— Erin (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose could be agreat image but the left dark side spoils it --Simonizer (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"The left dark side" could be cut off.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose as Simonizer - probably this scene can't be taken properly from that position. --Leafnode✉ 08:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

---

[edit] Edit 1 cut off "the left dark side"

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Muhammad (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Now the aspect ratio is improper imo --Simonizer (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice scene. However, either way the beach is cut in half, so I can't vote to feature either composition. --99of9 (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Between vote to feature and oppose is still a choice not to vote at all :). Both images provide a very good idea how the Ocean Beach looks, but who cares...--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose composition --Leafnode✉ 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

---

[edit] 秀逸除外候補

[edit] File:Brombeerlaub.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 15:16:04

• Info: Leaf of an unidentified plant; not a species of Rubus as the filename suggests. Minimal educational value, which is a major requirement for Commons. (Original nomination)
•  Delist -- MPF (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment The leaf is from the bushes see photo below --je-str (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment That looks like blackberry to me. Also, this picture was only just nominated for FP, doesn't it kind of render the voting process pointless if people spend time voting to feature a picture only to have it instantly delisted? --Silversmith Hewwo 21:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, if this is a Rubus leaf, then apparently it is very educational since it seems the current images we have don't give a good enough idea of what the leaves actually look like. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] タイムテーブル (推薦から5日後)

Sun 22 Nov → Fri 27 Nov
Mon 23 Nov → Sat 28 Nov
Tue 24 Nov → Sun 29 Nov
Wed 25 Nov → Mon 30 Nov
Thu 26 Nov → Tue 01 Dec
Fri 27 Nov → Wed 02 Dec

[edit] タイムテーブル (推薦から10日後)

Tue 17 Nov → Fri 27 Nov
Wed 18 Nov → Sat 28 Nov
Thu 19 Nov → Sun 29 Nov
Fri 20 Nov → Mon 30 Nov
Sat 21 Nov → Tue 01 Dec
Sun 22 Nov → Wed 02 Dec
Mon 23 Nov → Thu 03 Dec
Tue 24 Nov → Fri 04 Dec
Wed 25 Nov → Sat 05 Dec
Thu 26 Nov → Sun 06 Dec
Fri 27 Nov → Mon 07 Dec