Commons:Candidatas a imágenes destacadas

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Aquí están las candidatas a imágenes destacadas

Ten en cuenta que todo el proceso se realiza en inglés por lo que necesitarás conocimientos mínimos de éste para poder presentar una nueva nominación.

[edit] Formalidades

[edit] Nominación

Si crees que hay alguna foto en Commons lo suficientemente atractiva como para estar entre las imágenes destacadas, entonces por favor inclúyela en la lista de candidaturas editando este enlace. Si hay consenso general después de 10 días, la imagen se transferirá a imágenes destacadas.

[edit] Crear una nueva nominación

Paso 1: copia el nombre de la imagen y pégalo en este cuadro (incluyendo el prefijo Image: ), cuando ya hayas pegado el nombre de la imagen, por ejemplo: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:EL-NOMBRE-DE-TU-IMAGEN.JPG. Haz clic en el botón crear nueva nominación.

Paso 2: Sigue las instrucciones que verás en la página para rellenar los campos de información de tu imagen.

Paso 3: Manualmente inserta un enlace a la página que has creado sobre tu imagen arriba del todo en Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Haz clic aquí, y añade la siguiente línea ARRIBA en la página de nominaciones:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:EL-NOMBRE-DE-TU-IMAGEN.JPG}}

[edit] Para votar

Para votar puedes usar las siguientes plantillas:

{{Support}} ( Support),
{{Oppose}} ( Oppose),
{{Neutral}} ( Neutral),
{{Comment}} ( Comment),
{{Info}} ( Info),
{{Question}} ( Question).

Puedes indicar que una imagen no puede ser destacada con {{FPX|razón}}, donde en razón explicas los motivos claramente por los que no puede ser destacada.

Por favor explica brevemente porque estas a favor o en contra de la nominación de esa imagen, especialmente cuando votes en contra.

Puedes hacer comentarios en el idioma que quieras, aunque más vale tener en cuenta el hecho de que la mayor parte de los usuarios hablan inglés.

[edit] Reglas

Hay 9 días de deliberaciones. Se decide el resultado al día 10 después de la nominación.
Los usuarios anónimos pueden proponer candidatas.
Los usuarios anónimos pueden participar en la discusión.
Los votos de usuarios anónimos no cuentan.
Una nominación no cuenta automáticamente como un voto. Debes expresar tu apoyo de forma explícita.

La candidata se convertirá en una imagen destacada a condición de:

estar bajo una licencia libre (por supuesto)
que haya un mínimo de cinco votos a favor
que la proporción de votos a favor / en contra sea al menos 2/1 (o sea, una mayoría de dos tercios o 67%)

[edit] Propuestas

[edit] Featured picture candidates

[edit] File:Common Jezebel Delias eucharis by kadavoor.JPG

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 09:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jkadavoor - uploaded by Jkadavoor - nominated by Jkadavoor -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aceros cassidix - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 2011-02.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 01:56:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fiorellino - uploaded by Fiorellino - nominated by Fiorellino -- Fiorellino (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Fiorellino (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose too tight crop, not sharp enough. Tomer T (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Winterporling Polyporus brumalis.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 21:09:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Citron (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I like it--Miguel Bugallo 22:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ricinus communis - Fruits.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 17:53:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Moonik (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Moonik (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak oppose I find the composition too busy. Tomer T (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose the main: the fruits are too unsharp. The DOF is too low. The distracting background kills the composition. If we see only the sky in the background and the plant slightly tilted, then I give my full support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Royal Coat of Arms of Greece.svg

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 16:58:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sodacan - uploaded by Sodacan - nominated by Katarighe -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 16:51:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sodacan - uploaded by Sodacan - nominated by Katarighe -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as used by current monarch Queen Elizabeth II from 1952 to the present (as used in all her realms except Scotland).

Support -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:ST vs LOU - 21.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 13:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by PierreSelim - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice --Katarighe (Talk) 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice! ■ MMXX ^talk 22:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support thank you for the nomination --PierreSelim (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 20:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christopher Neugebauer on Flickr - uploaded and nominated by Cloudbound -- Cloudbound (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Cloudbound (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Too dark, but this can be corrected. I made a try: File:Qantas A380 lands at Melbourne Airport edit.jpg. Yann (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Overall, I like the atmosphere the colors create. But I too think it might bee too dark. I think a more mild brightening would be better, for exmaple File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport-edit2.jpg. Tomer T (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Early-morning light is one of my favorite shooting situations, so I think the general atmosphere of the image is fine. Darker blue colors high in the sky transitioning to reddish toward the horizon is consistent with what I'd expect from the timing of the shoot, and indeed I think it makes the aircraft stand out well against the sky. However, 1/1000 is an awful short exposure time for this kind of lighting, so I agree that it's probably way darker than it appeared in person. I like what you did with the second edit... I'd definitely support that file. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I guess the world is a small place. The photographer is an acquaintance of mine. He has a username here with a couple of uploads (User:Noogz). JJ Harrison (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Noogz (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC) (By the way, if consensus is that it needs to be brightened, I'd be more than happy to do this from the original RAW)

[edit] File:Mandarin Oranges (Citrus Reticulata).jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 04:04:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jovianeye
Support -- Jovian Eye _storm 04:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose for now. The colours look oversaturated to me, especially in the red shadows under the leaves (and the leaf-green looks a little overdone too). I would support a different version of this picture if it is reprocessed. --99of9 (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have reprocessed the image from RAW with standard picture control. The earlier version used vivid. --Jovian Eye _storm 12:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Support Good for me now. --99of9 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutral Wouldn't mind it being featured. But I think, as 99of9 that saturation should be lowered a bit. Won't support also because I don't like the leaves being under the mandarins, it looks kind of too "forced". --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Changing the picture processing has reduced the saturation a bit. As for the leaves, I never forced them down, its the way they were packed and kept at the store. :) --Jovian Eye _storm 13:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sevilla 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 21:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Meho29, nominated by -- 80.230.5.252 21:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
~~Support~~ -- 80.230.5.252 21:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please log in to vote. Yann (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose tilted, no specific point of interest Gnan garra 02:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Busy composition, unneccessary black and white reduces the educational value. --99of9 (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Card puncher - NARA - 513295.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 08:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by US Department of Commerce, restored and nominated by Yann (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Info Woman operating a card puncher. Image from the US National Archives and Records Administration.
Support -- Yann (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Is it possible to remove the white line around the head?--Sasha Krotov (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Done ■ MMXX ^talk 23:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Now this is an example of a nice old image. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)S
Support--Miguel Bugallo 22:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support/Sasha Krotov (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew(1939)a.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 00:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown Polish photographer - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Miniapolis -- Miniapolis (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Miniapolis (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the pink color. It should be converted to shade of gray. See File:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew 1939.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I think it's worth Wikipedia featuring, but not Commons. The image is extremely blurry, noisy and shows poor detail. It also has this pink tint. I know it's a very old shot but then, should every historic picture be featured? I don't think so, that's why we have a valued images section. This is not among commons best historic material by far imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 22:18:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Poco a poco, improved versions by NorbertNagel and Aleks G and nominated by Poco a poco -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak oppose-The window through which it is taken is not centered--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Colchicum automnale.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 20:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Cquoi - uploaded by User:Cquoi - nominated by User:Cquoi -- Cquoi 20:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- User:Cquoi (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose unsharp details, I would like to see more of the stamens. Tomer T (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment bad file name imo... One could be confused and doubt if it is the name of the plant or the animal. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I see nothing sharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 19:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Brian Gratwicke - uploaded by me (through File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)) - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Info A very good shot of a critically endangered species of a frog. Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Cute frog, harmonious composition, nice colours, excellent picture. / Achird (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Sasha Krotov (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose harsh flashlight and the resulting strong shadows ruins this pic imo. --mathias K 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just want to note that this species is critically endangered. To my understanding of reading its profile in the IUCN red list website, the species is very rare and there are very few individuals left, and that's what makes the picture so valuable in my eyes. I'm not sure you can say the image is reproducible, so I think quality issues are secondary in this case, or at least less important than usual. Your opinion is your opinion, but I just wanted to share my point of view for a productive discussion. Tomer T (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support The flash light is a minus. Definitely. Should have used some other illumination system (there are many for frog photography, like a macro ring led flash light). But detail is good, the composition is awesome, and it is an endangered species. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
weak support nice frog. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:DoemitzerBruecke2.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 18:30:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fice - uploaded by Fice - nominated by Anonymous
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Prominent shadow on the foreground + not that much wow imo + poor crop on the sides + a bit of horizontal perspective correction needed I think. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Olympic and Titanic.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 15:55:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Robert John Welch (1859-1936), official photographer for Harland & Wolff - uploaded by User:Centpacrr - nominated by User:TrebleSeven -- TrebleSeven (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support as nominator -- Outstanding image, brilliant quality for 1912, and is one of the only images of the Olympic and the Titanic together after nearly colliding. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Too small ~~and blown out sky~~. Yann (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Quality is not that great, needs more restoration, version uploaded by Centpacrr seems to be better somehow. ■ MMXX ^talk 01:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Done TrebleSeven (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Better, but there are still problems. See annotations. Yann (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Alt

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info correction of colours, contrast and enlargement by User:TrebleSeven.
Support -- TrebleSeven (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, clouds disappeared, the corners are all very blurry.--Sasha Krotov (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Very noisy, there are still problems. See annotations. Yann (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kaveri river.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 15:11:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose No wow and poor license. Yann (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose at about 1pm: the sky is simply too dark for me. The license is however full OK for wikipedia. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per above --Katarighe (Talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose too dark + the crop on the right seems too tight. Tomer T (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:El Tres de Mayo, by Francisco de Goya, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 09:17:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Google Art Project, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Yann (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Info The Third of May 1808, by Francisco de Goya. A very high resolution of a famous painting, by the Google Art Project. It is acknowledged as one of the first paintings of the modern era. According to the art historian Kenneth Clark, this is "the first great picture which can be called revolutionary in every sense of the word, in style, in subject, and in intention" (Wikipedia).
Support -- Yann (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Nice image, but can you crop that black line on the left? TrebleSeven (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Request -- Can you crop that black line on the left? TrebleSeven (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Please notice that the "black line" (in fact, a shadow) is part of the framing. It is necessary for an encyclopedic purpose: it proofs that the picture shows the whole painting, whithout any crop.--Jebulon (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

My connection is too slow to download the whole file, let alone upload it again after editing. Yann (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment@Jebulon Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This proves nothing. Given the picture frame of the painting is not displayed, even this decision was an initial crop to the composition. Without the picture frame any statement on the actual image borders is mere guesswork. In case you've seen the image in reality things might be different because you know how it looks. Yet this is not the case for most viewers. Cropping an area that contains no information is admissible in this case. Indeed a version featuring the frame would be nice for its encyclopaedic value, given the frame itself has fallen into the public domain and the creator of this image would provide it with a free licence. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand very well what you mean. Maybe we agree. Here we can see a part of the framing all around, then we may be sure that the whole of the painting is shown... I know the rule about the PD domain of the framings.--Jebulon (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Machecoul - Abbaye Notre-Dame-de-la-Chaume (1).jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 21:04:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Selbymay (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Selbymay (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I like it. Tomer T (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Isn't it a bit soft ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
SupportGood -- Raghith 08:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Nice, good composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Isn't it a bit yellow ?--Jebulon (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose unsharp (out of focus) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Carschten. I am suprised this made it through QI. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose nice, but I see too many unsharp areas at the main object. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose unnatural colours, not really sharp. --Berthold Werner (talk)
Oppose Colors not ok. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
{ Support - color of the clouds and sky is perfectly plausible and natural, so I don't doubt the rest of the image is very similar in color to the actual scene at the time –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Niveoscincus metallicus - Austin's Ferry.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 21:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by p0lyzoarium -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
SupportGood -- Raghith 08:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice and sharp on the eye and most of the body. Pleasant composition. --99of9 (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Very nice and sleek. Peaceful image. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The whole tail is out of focus, which is not that bad. But the crop so near the end of the tail ruins it imo. A more balanced composition would require the same amount of space as the one left on the left side, from the head to the edge. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - when I first looked, I thought it was very aesthetically pleasing. Then I thought of several reasons why it shouldn't be... but it is. I don't get it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Corvus tasmanicus - Collinsvale.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 21:02:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by p0lyzoarium -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose insufficient use of the camera's native resolution. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 04:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- - "Ghostbusters" the next round :-( I my opinion it is simply unfair!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- (it's a crop) JJ Harrison (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  - So just because the camera could have taken a higher resolution photo you oppose it? A picture is a picture, regardless of the camera that took at, am I wrong? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    - Deliberately using lower resolution than technicaly possibly is utterly unnecessary. And yes, I do oppose those who limit resolution by downsampling or disproportional cropping - independent of the image. This limits the possibilities of re-use outside the Wikiworld. One of the major aspects to a featured picture is the way people can re-use it. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      - "This limits the possibilities of re-use outside the Wikiworld." Yes, that's exactly the reason why we require a minimum resultion of 2 MPx. Everything above would fit that requirement. The cameras original resolution is absolutely irrelevant at this point. Arguing against the FPC is
        
        unfair, because this argument targets the equipment, not the image itself.
        
        stupid, because for this argument you need knowledge of the used eqipment supported only by EXIF data which can easily be changed or deleted.
      - "Deliberately using lower resolution than technicaly possibly is utterly unnecessary". This is just a statement from you. In fact you don't have any clue, if the author cropped it to improve the composition or downsampled it without any strong reason. Alleging the last is again unfair and stupid. --LC-de (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- What a petty reason for opposing this image. It's this kind of rule-craziness that discourages people from submitting images here. --69.225.14.10 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- per Peter Weis. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong support a very good and valuable image. We needn't larger images for Wikipedia too!!! It is exact and perfect for the full resolution of my monitor (2560*1440 pixel). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Alchemist, I simply don't care about your WQHD display setup. One of our projects targets is the re-use of images outside the wiki world and the internet. To assure the possibility of re-use in print for example, high resolution is mandatory. Since we don't know how people like to re-use images, providing the highest resolution we can is a service to them. Given a situation in which people can rely on the quality of this project, more and more re-users will be convinced by our cause and the usefulness of free licences. Again: limiting the possibility of re-use is counterproductive to this process. Other users apply nutty licence combinations to decrease the chances of commercial re-use or any other way of re-use they oppose to. Yet this is allowed so far, and therefore no valid reason to oppose. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  - OK, now we have a new rule: the "Peter Weis Rule": if the image isn't uploaded in full camera resolution then it is permissible to oppose it. --> absolutely NONSENS! "In the future I eliminate simple my EXIF Data or I manipulate it to a low resolution camera, perhaps to a 3MP Kodak DC 4800, my first photo tool." --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  - I think equity is important, and we should apply the same standards to all nominations, regardless of camera type. We assess the qualities of an image, not the performance of the creator. Ideally, the creator's name should be hidden as long the image is under assessment, to assure fairness. --ELEKHH^T 12:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    - @Alchemist: Despite being a timeconsuming endeavour, this would be rather useless. Since I know that you are working with a Canon 5D Mark II (SN: 530306722), and comparing the differences in terms of image quality should be possible on eye sight, feel free to do as you like. You are trying to decrease the credibility of my statement by presuming that my opposition is based on a rule, which you referred to as the "Peter Weis Rule" - why, thank you for this subtle move. The only thing that is nonsens (sic!), is your made up citation and rule. For clarification: I do oppose in this case, because the native resolution of the Canon 7D (5,184 x 3,456 pixels) was cropped disproportional. More than 50% of the image were cropped. I am fully aware that it might have been necessary to keep this distance to avoid scaring off the crow and that 700mm is already at the upper end of what most people carry around. To me a true featured picture would have been able to provide a larger resolution without cropping at large. There is no guideline that prohibits opposition to featured picture candidates. Despite the supports to this decreased resolution, you won't be able to convince me - a compromise is futile.
    - @Elekhh: I would have opposed anyone else who's cropping away that much of his native resolution - independent of the camera. The performance of the creator is what determines the quality of an image. Unregarded our desire to prevent this from being part of the decision-making process, we do considerate the performance of the creator as well. The story behind the images is critical to our evaluation, because it determines our view to the picture. Imagine a panaroma that was taken shortly before the photographer got killed by a landslide. It's just not possible to remain unbiased during this process if knowing about this. The idea is to produce arguments that are considered being objective or technical and blind out those arguments which affect us as well. In this case we don't know much about the circumstances under which the image was taken. And yes, of course my critique is directed at JJ Harisson as creator of this image and his extensive cropping. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
      - You are almost alone with your (for me) unfair opinion. Our minium requirement are 2MP for an FP image. It don't must be the fuill resolution of the camera. We can be lucky to have this image. It is much better then nothing! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong support Per Alchemist. / Achird (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Alchemist. --Cayambe (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Intriguing "crime scene", good quality. --ELEKHH^T 00:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Yes, I demand to have this at billboard HD size resolution. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Alchemist. --LC-de (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice timing, deliciously done! Royal broil 02:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- cropped image so what many FP are cropped, it a common adjustment during the FP process Gnan garra 02:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support 2000px is fully sufficient. --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Alchemist --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Enjoy your meal! --Schnobby (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Beautiful autumn day.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 16:08:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Photos public domain - uploaded by Dipankan001 - nominated by Dipankan001 -- Dipankan001 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose unsharp and oversaturated. Take a look to the sky: you see chromatic noise. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- Over-saturated. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Glass of red wine.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 15:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Photos Public Domain - uploaded by Dipankan001 - nominated by Dipankan001 -- Dipankan001 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose tilted and dictracting background. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Too much noise, not sharp and what is the encyclopaedic value? --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose--P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- Not so sharp, the background is a little bit distracting, per others. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Metropolitan opera 1937.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 10:32:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Information Agency - uploaded by Darwinek and AndreasPraefcke - nominated by Fanoftheworld -- Fanoftheworld (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Fanoftheworld (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- I like it, brilliant composition, good quality for a B/W image. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Needs more/better restoration, see image notes, just marked some of them. also image has artifacts, unlike the original TIFF, it is grainy,. ■ MMXX ^talk 01:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per MMXX --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per MMXX. But will be happy to change my vote to support if corrections are made, this is a beautiful, impressive and valuable image. It just needs a little boost to be a FP. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Force India 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 01:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gil Abrantes (flickr), uploaded and nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment considering that the photo was taken from far away and the car is moving at high speed picture turned out good --Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --David საქართველო 06:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose the composition and cut isn't OK for me: to much unatractive foreground, lo less car, not enough place in front of the car. And the main: the car ist unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. / Achird (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutral -- I agree, if only the background was a little bit different. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. --ELEKHH^T 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. --Pitlane02 _talk 13:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Khost children in 2010.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 11:34:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Staff Sgt. Andrew Smith (U.S armed forces), nominated by 122.169.50.222
Support --Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- I like the composition. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support very nice image--David საქართველო 06:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Bruce1ee. Tomer T (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice propaganda from the US military, but well... Yann (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
OpposePer Yann, except the "but well...". Parent's consents ? Personal rights warning ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid many of these children have no parents--Sasha Krotov (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Yann and Jebulon. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Jebulon. / Achird (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support very nice aesthetically, has EV.. of course.. US miliatary propaganda... Personal rights warning etc.. should not be arguments for a FPC IMO.. may-be for a deletion request... but not here. Ggia (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support our troops. USA! USA! USA! - But seriously, this is one of the best shots in Category:Children of Afghanistan so far. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 04:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
SupportGood -- Raghith 08:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment When I nominated this picture I was acutely aware that this was USM work. But despite that this work humanizes and highlights the Afghans. Secondly its hard to say 'kill all Muslims', 'bomb,bomb!' while looking at this picture.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.141.235 (talk • contribs)
- So it is a non-neutral nomination with a political purpose ??--Jebulon (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Wonderful picture. Really, it's a brilliant shot. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

about you comment, Commons:Featured_picture_candidates General rules: Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome.--Sasha Krotov (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I don't mind who took the photo. It's a featured picture IMO. --Dr.Haus (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Composition is excellent. Royal broil 02:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose License at source restricts commercial use Images uploaded to Flickr are for the free intended use for dissemination by media outlets and all other interested persons or organizations for newsworthy or educational media products. They are not, however, and in accordance to Flickr policy, to be used with the intention of reproducing and selling the images without prior consent of the releasing authority, or by extension, the photographer whose name should be included in the description. Please credit "Photo by ISAF Public Affairs" unless otherwise noted. The releasing authority is the Public Affairs Officer for ISAF Headquarters or any persons designated by the Public Affairs Officer, any of whom can be contacted at pressoffice@hq.isaf.nato.int. [1] Gnan garra 09:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Created by U.S. Army Photographer (not another NATO Army Photographer) which means this photo is public domain. Sasha Krotov (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

not according to the source used, please link to a US military source for this image as there is nothing on the source page that identifies the photographer[2]. Gnan garra 11:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

see Exif2 Info[3], it consist all information about author. Sasha Krotov (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

that just means its a copy violation at source, as such we cant link to it. Find a US military alternative Gnan garra 12:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Eilean Donan Castle Panorama..jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 06:09:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by, uploaded by, nominated by -- Ritchyblack (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Ritchyblack (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Very nice view and panorama. The only thing I am not totally happy with is the colour or saturation in the sky, but that's a minor problem. / Achird (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Super. -- -donald- (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support very nice, though two people are on the bridge centre section in the reflection on the water.... Gnan garra 11:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Very good of you observed, and I have retouched badly! --Ritchyblack (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment very nice, I would support a better crop (the tree on the right is cut). PierreSelim (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Aleks G (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Per Pierre-Selim. Two cm less at left, and two cm more at right...
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't understand why the two people were erased in the first place. Thierry Caro (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I like the photo without people prefer. I had been waiting a very long time that the two go on. But now came the next travel group already on the bridge. I'm standing with the feet in the water and the flood was rising. These are only temporary objects that I have removed --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Support I like this photo--David საქართველო 06:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
SupportNice.-- Raghith 10:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Great picture!!! --Meho29 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Nice, very nice, very high quality and very pleasant to the eye. Did you use Photoshop for this?

Question -- Did you use Photoshop? TrebleSeven (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Info The metadata indicates that Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows was used. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Support Great! -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Very nice! ■ MMXX ^talk 00:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Beautiful! Royal broil 03:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support good nice image --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Automeris caterpillar.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 17:54:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Geoff Gallice - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Beautiful. --Aleks G (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose dark details of caterpillar and branch eliminated by the black background. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice. --Karelj (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Bold image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Carschten. Bad black colored background work. Otherwise nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp, oppose only due to the "bad" black background.--Jebulon (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose dark image--David საქართველო 06:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
SupportGood -- Raghith 08:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- The background isn't good enough. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support The background is OK: better than white or green one. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose As kaʁstn--Miguel Bugallo 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Russia. Moscow Region. Winter pine wood, lake Kratovskoe area.JPG

{Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 21:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G -- Aleks G (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Impo, this is not sufficent for a featurable picture (nothing special, just trees). --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per above--David საქართველო 20:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support the image is really technically good, its interesting it shows the detail it let the viewer experience what snow looks like. Gnan garra 01:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Better viewed as an artwork rather than a picture of trees. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Gnangarra. --Cayambe (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I like it. Tomer T (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per other supporters.--Jebulon (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice atmosphere! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support — Raghith 10:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- These are superb trees, really nice composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 00:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Paolo Costa (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Miguel Bugallo 22:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per JJ –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:20081206 Alexandros Grigoropoulos december 2008 riots Sina Street Athens Greece.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 12:46:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Ggia - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support This B&W picture appears timeless ; the grain and stark contrast from the film, along with the make of the car (a Jeep...), had me wonder wether it was truly from 2008. It also has an eerie feeling, as if the burned down and turned over body of the car was floating above the ground. Truly worth being featured, according to me. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Conrado (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC). Impressive, a tribute.
Support !!! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Request @Ggia: maybe you could add some infos about your used camera and the settings of the image? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak supportAt full size it's very noisy and I get the feeling the jeep could be more focused. Anyways, I am not opposing since I am aware of the difficulty of all the conditions and It still is a wonderful pic, with a huge wow (the light just above the car is perfect).--Paolo Costa (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Dr.Haus (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer finds another nuggest of gold. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a Contact sheet of the whole set of images shot here. I just uploaded it. Ggia (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Info I am really impressed that you like this image since it is an image from film, having some grain - and noise-grainy images are usually rejected for being FPC ;-). According to my negative notes it is shot by FM2 Nikon, Kodak Tri-X 400ASA (Shot at 400ASA), D76 developer 1 (stock) + 1 (water), 11 minutes @ 20Celsius. Shoting during the night (without flash) and with 400ASA film you need to have open diafragm and the depth of field is quite limited (you can see it at the image). I uploaded this image on December 2011 remembering the December 2008 riots without thinking that this can be a FPC. Ggia (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Paolo Costa Cathy Richards (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Aleks G (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support — Raghith 10:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Good, very vintage. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Very good. Nice to see someone shooting in the only true raw format.--ArildV (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /FPCBot (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hallstaviks kyrka January 2011d.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 19:42:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by ArildV -- ArildV (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- ArildV (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Wow! / Achird (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose No wow at all. It is simply a well executed picture of a church. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose As Saffron Blaze. --Karelj (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Architecture is under-appreciated on FP in my opinion. This has serene mood all around, with a good combination of lighting and snow-dusting. Technically, it is sharp, with correct perspective, and minimal noise. The composition is great, with high EV, no distracting elements, and the eye is led right into the door. --99of9 (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Nothing wrong with it, nice composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose dull colors and visible CA. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ice cream van, Helsinki (Helsingfors).JPG

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 12:42:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- Simply an image of an ice-cream van, nothing special. It's not even sharp enough. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per TrebleSeven. Tomer T (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose bad cut, simple and boring centered composition. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Crocus tommasinianus LC0031.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 09:42:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Tommasini's crocus (Crocus tommasinianus); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support good enough for me. Use of DOF, composition, sharpness. Direct sunlight might be a minus in some cases, yet here I think it is a plus. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Gratulon pro la momento! Conrado (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Beautiful pic. Identified sp., has EV, nice atmosphere, good composition. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose It's just not clicking with me. I find the ground and background distracting. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose As Gambliel, nothing special. --Karelj (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The composition is too cluttered, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- Bit blurry at the back, per Cayambe. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose blurred flower in the foreground spoils the composition Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose uniteresting composition, bad light. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Šmarjetna gora 04.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 08:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Meho29 - uploaded by Meho29 - nominated by Meho29 -- Mihael Grmek (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment What is the subject/what would the educational value be? --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Lošmi (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Very pleasant, nice place to go to forget your troubles. Brilliant pic. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per TrebleSeven Cathy Richards (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose chromatic aberration --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Carschten. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Carschten. --Miguel Bugallo 22:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bonaparte premier Consul Gérard Chantilly.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 01:50:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by François Gérard - uploaded & nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Napoléon Bonaparte, as First Consul of the French Republic, Feb. 1803. On display at Musée Condé of Château de Chantilly, France. Photo taken by the nominator.-- Jebulon (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Paolo Costa (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Aleks G (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- High educational value. :). TrebleSeven (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Borboletas em Mini-Dálias.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 18:33:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Five butterflies in five Dahlia flowers; created, uploaded and nominated by Denis Conrado. Conrado (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Conrado (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice and beautiful, for the first time i saw all 4 butterflies on the flowers in the same picture.Trongphu (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 22:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Noisy and blurry, the flowers as well as the butterflies --Llez (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Quality just not enough for FP. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Better don't zoom in...--Yikrazuul (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing special, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Exocoetus volitans.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 15:01:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gervais & Boulart - uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Citron (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Support cool looking fish, it seems like a drawing picture to me.Trongphu (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is...--Jebulon (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Poor colors, no wow at all for me, would like it more sharpened. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutral -- Nice drawing, how can it be even more sharpened? TrebleSeven (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Yann (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Goddess Bhadrakali Worshipped by the Gods- from a tantric Devi series - Google Art Project.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 12:52:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by 17th century Basholi artist, Google Art Project - latest version uploaded by Redtigerxyz - nominated by Redtigerxyz -- Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Very good. Yann (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice art work.Trongphu (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Brilliant educational value. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)