Commons:Candidatas a imágenes destacadas

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Aquí están las candidatas a imágenes destacadas

Ten en cuenta que todo el proceso se realiza en ingles por lo que necesitaras conocimientos mínimos de este 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] File:Baha'i House of Worship, Evanston.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 22:15:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by karaian - uploaded, nominated by JalalV -- JalalV (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- JalalV (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support There is some red CA at the right-hand side snow and blue CA at the right-hand side of the dome, but I could live with it :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Zlin Żelazny Góraszka 2.JPG

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 21:32:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Łukasz Golowanow (User:Airwolf) & Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Wolf (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dead Vlei 3.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 18:43:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Proskowski-Lobkowitz CoA.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 15:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Sharpness problems, lots of JPEG artifacts, awkward lighting. -- Jovan Cormac 17:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

sharpness problems? I don't see... ---Pudelek (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Napa Valley.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 08:26:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: Vineyards in Napa Valley. created by Mila Zinkova - nominated by Anon

I withdraw my nomination thank you for nomination

~~--Mbz1 (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)~~

Is it really appropriate for you to withdraw the nomination when you are not the nominator? I am aware that you created the picture, but still... --Aqwis (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Where were you when we discussed this? I do agree that author withdraw is nonsense, and really could have used your support in the discussion. You should check out FPC/talk more often. -- Jovan Cormac 13:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I believed that the rule was voted for and added to the gudilens. I guess I am mistaking. Please acept my apology, everybody. Go ahead with the votes. One more humiliation one less, who cares

--Mbz1 (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right, it was, and you won't see me saying otherwise. What I am saying is that this rule shouldn't have passed in the first place (which I already argued for during the voting process) and that I could have used Aqwis' support for my position then, rather than now when it's all over. -- Jovan Cormac 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is funny. I thought that "Where were you when we discussed this? " was addressed to me :). So, I thought to myself that some users are unhappy, when I nominate my images, others are unhappy, when I withdraw nominations of my images :) I kind of got lost in translation :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't read FPC talk very often anymore. --Aqwis (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, Aqwis, "sorry" is not good enough anymore. Now you should support the image. :) Otherwise ... I do not know what I will do... Maybe misspell your user name like I did last time :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Fantastic colour. Very nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, amazing. --Vprisivko (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Farbharmonie --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:I35W Collapse - Day 4 - Operations & Scene (95).jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 08:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: Submitted Photo - nominated by Anon

Cars rest on the collapsed portion of I-35W Mississippi River bridge.

Neutral – It sure is a story-telling picture with lots of value. On the other hand it does not strike me as an image with FP photographic quality. Maybe valued image? --Ernie (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral as above --Leafnode✉ 12:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, grainy and blurry. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative

Info: Nominated by H005 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I think this edit has better photographic quality. Not excellent, but the subject is intriguing enough to mitigate for that issue. -- H005 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support - Better indeed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Papilio.machaon.7553.JPG

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 07:13:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Olaf Leillinger - uploaded by Olaf Leillinger - nominated by Erin Silversmith — Erin (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support — Erin (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose – Composition, serious smear from noise reduction. More compelling images of Papilio machaon in Category:Papilio machaon --Ernie (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment I've spent quite a few hours over the last couple of days scouring the categories and most images are too small, anything under about 2,000,000 bytes isn't good enough (for macro) and even when they have the sharpness, there is composition, focus, exposure etc. At first glance some images there might look better, but if you open each one up you might only find one or two good enough to nominate, only to find they already have been, and either rejected or featured.--Silversmith Hewwo 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:3Hagebutten 2008-2-10.JPG

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 06:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Hedwig Storch - uploaded by Hedwig Storch - nominated by Erin Silversmith — Erin (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support. Good quality, pleasing colours, sharp focus, different. — Erin (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose DoF. Even the front-most bud is not fully sharp, not mentioning the other two. --Leafnode✉ 12:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Love What is It.JPG

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 22:08:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment A delightfully poignant picture, in these days of strife and fear.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - image as image is nothing special and the inscription is not universal, it bears some meaning only for English language speakers.--Avala (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Agreed with Avala. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per others --Cesco77 (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:M-danilov-2009-01.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 18:58:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Troitse-Danilov monastery in Pereslavl, Russua, on Easter 2009

Info: created by User:PereslavlFoto - uploaded by User:PereslavlFoto - nominated by User:PereslavlFoto -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The sky is very noisy IMO. I am not sure about the composition either (the building is cut off). --Mbz1 (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I agree with Mbz1 --Cesco77 (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing special about the lighting arrangement—why take the photo at night? —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose agree with others --AngMoKio (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as Mbz1 --Leafnode✉ 12:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Romanbathparis.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 14:33:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of a Roman bath beneath the Latin Quarter of Paris

Info: created by Mkooiman - uploaded by Mkooiman - nominated by Mkooiman -- Mkooiman (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Mkooiman (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Nice atmosphere, but composition (cut off chairs) and color balance leave to be desired. -- Jovan Cormac 15:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral It's an attractive image, but the crop at the top is too tight for me to support it. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Composition is not bad, but the noise no. Cromatic aberration on the windows --Cesco77 (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pilsudski 1910 1920 LOC hec 14263 restored.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 12:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by someone named K. Pęcherski - restored, uploaded & nominated by -- Wolf (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: on the picture itself, today is Independence Day in Poland, so I'm nominating a portrait of the man to whom we - i.e. Poles - owe the independence to a large extent. I chose this particular picture for two reasons. 1. It was most probably taken some time during World War I, so Piłsudski was soon going to become the architect of Poland's liberation from over a century of partitions. 2. I simply like the mood of the picture and his appearance here, it perfectly corresponds with how he wanted to be percieved.
Info: on the restoration, this is my very first attempt at it so I'm not going to mind even strong crticism providing that it's backed with some feedback about what I should've done better. Thanks in advance.
Support -- Wolf (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak support Good restoration. My only complaints are relatively low resolution and the tight crop on top. I'm sure this great man deserves a little more headroom ;-) -- Jovan Cormac 15:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I do not know why you cropped the top so tightly; I see that there was an inscription near the top in the original image, but if you had wanted to remove that, I suppose you could have cloned it out. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Question: And if I left more headroom with the inscription? Wolf (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Inscription is very small, it should be easy to remove it. If you want, I can do it. But on the other hand, the writing itself is quite interesting. --Leafnode✉ 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Comment That's what I think to. I'll give it try today. Wolf (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:The burning of Columbia, South Carolina, February 17, 1865.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 09:51:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by William Waud - uploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by Pmlinediter -- Pmlineditor ∞ 09:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Pmlineditor ∞ 09:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Support - delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 17:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Paeonia lactiflora 'Bowl of Beauty'-2459.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 08:34:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Maedin Tureaud - uploaded by Maedin Tureaud - nominated by Erin Silversmith — Erin (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Support — Erin (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Trivial composition, underexposed. Yes, flowers are pretty, but this picture has nothing which sets it above other flower pictures. --Dschwen (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment I will support if the background is denoised. I don't understand the "underexposed" comment... any brighter and the delicate whites will blow? 99of9 (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose composition, dull colors/bad light --Leafnode✉ 12:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment May I withdraw this? I appreciate the nomination, Erin, but this is not FP quality, by a long shot . . . I'd rather not have lots of opposes telling me what I already know about my own photography! Maedin\^talk 19:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yes, just say the word. --99of9 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

~~I withdraw my nomination~~

As per request by Maedin. I'm still trying to figure out what gets supported and what doesn't. Seems to be a very fine line, as even ones which get lots of support will still have one or two oppose votes. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Horse market in Lorenzkirch.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 00:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by an unknown German photographer around 1900 - restored by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Very interesting and valuable. I'd appreciate it if you could upload an unrestored version as well for comparison. -- Jovan Cormac 09:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: This is the unrestored version: File:Horse market in Lorenzkirch (Scan of the photography).jpg. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Looking at that version, I would say you have lost some detail through the brightness correction, notably on the horses. Compared to the scan the candidate looks a little overexposed. -- Jovan Cormac 13:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support per Jovan. Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Support GerardM (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I think the contrast has been pushed too far. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: Thanks, I made an update with lower contrast. By the way: this file is large and optimized to the resultion of 1600x1200 on the screen for the best view on the highly detailed and sharp image. It is a picture story with many freeze frames of the life in Germany 110 years ago. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment – one of Wikimedia's finest? To me it seems more like a valued image. --Ernie (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cygnus olor LC0201.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 21:38:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: Portrait of an adult Mute Swan (Cygnus olor) in the typical posture of the head
Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The main subject is overexposed. -- Jovan Cormac 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support To me it looks just right, great image. -- H005 19:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with Jovan. — Erin (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose overexposed --Leafnode✉ 12:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Asa & Jätkäjätkät @ Bar Kino - Asa, Joska Josafat & Kari Hulkkonen.JPG

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 19:47:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 19:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support IMO this one has really nice mood. Asa is finnish rapper, Teosto-award winner and he nowadays plays with his band, Jätkäjätkät. The image is bit soft and noisy, but the lightning conditions were very challenging (and please check out for instance these FPs to compare noiselevel: 1, 2, 3). —kallerna™ 19:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Sharpness, composition. -- H005 19:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as above --Leafnode✉ 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Asa & Jätkäjätkät @ Bar Kino - Asa 10.JPG

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 19:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I love the colours of this one. Asa is finnish rapper and Teosto-award winner. The image is bit soft and noisy, but the lightning conditions were very challenging (and please check out for instance these FPs to compare noiselevel: 1, 2, 3). —kallerna™ 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Noise is not an issue to me, but sharpness is, and I am missing the wow! -- H005 19:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose posterization, sharpness --Leafnode✉ 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative version

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 19:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support —kallerna™ 20:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose As per above. I understand the difficult conditions, but the result is far from FP IMHO. -- H005 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The head is out of focus, sorry --Cesco77 (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose colors, sharpness --Leafnode✉ 12:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Guisard - Milky Way.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 11:32:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Stéphane Guisard (ESO) - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: The location of the starscape in relation to the rest of the galaxy.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment ~~The link to the original file is broken, which seems to be against the licence~~ --S23678 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice to have an astronomy picture Featured that was not created by NASA. -- Jovan Cormac 11:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support But please fix the link to original file. —kallerna™ 12:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Fixed source link (sorry). Originalwana (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Simonizer (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment The source link ([1]) mentions a 24 403 x 13 973 pixel mosaic image available through Stéphane Guisard. Now that would be great to have on Commons. Anyone know how to contact him? -- Jovan Cormac 14:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment, I think we should put this FPC on hold until Stéphane Guisard has been contacted and replied. --Aqwis (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Resolution is above the 2 megapixels requirements, we can still vote. The resolution is a different matter and we can deal with it despite this nomination. Diti the penguin — 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  - I agree. This should be promoted regardless of the bigger image that we might get. Btw, the website makes a weird claim about the mosaic being a gigapixel in resolution, when 24000x14000 pixels is actually only 0.3 gigapixels. Am I missing something? -- Jovan Cormac 22:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    - The claim is based on 0.34 gigapixel per color channel as there is one exposure per channel. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
      - Ahh, that makes it clear. Thank you. -- Jovan Cormac 09:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Stéphane Guisard has a WIKIMEDIA account if you want to talk to him. Looks like he doesn't use it that much. The 24 403 x 13 973 mosaic can be found at Stéphane Guisard's website but it is copyrighted.
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Lookatthis (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Avala (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Brombeerlaub.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 22:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by je-str - uploaded by je-str - nominated by je-str -- Je-str (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Je-str (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Absolutely fantastic. AlexAH (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment There's some ~~posterization~~ quality issues on second look, I can't tell for sure if it's posterization in the top left corner, and the file size is very small (less than a Mbyte). I doubt this was uploaded at the best quality. I'm sure this can be arranged. I'll support if it is. --S23678 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support.--— Erin (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support This is beautiful, though the quality issues mentioned above should be adressed. -- Jovan Cormac 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Yes. Takabeg (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Categories? Easy subject and the quality is far from perfect. —kallerna™ 12:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I do not like the crop and the changing color of the background (the sky I assume). Nice image, but not special enough IMO.Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment You are absolutely right, I could superimpose a flawless sky.But I believe, genuine is the original sky. je-str (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Support per JovanCormac. --.ds m. 08:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ochlodes sylvanus MichaD.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 21:45:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Michael Apel| - uploaded by Michael Apel| - nominated by Erin Silversmith — Erin (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support — Erin (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support good quality, nice colours -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Looks great as thumbnail, however on full resolution there are some artifacts. --NEURO ^⇌ 22:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Better than almost all currently Featured insect macros. -- Jovan Cormac 08:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Posterized or something. —kallerna™ 12:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Artefacts should be remove, after that i will support --Simonizer (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Question: Would someone be able to remove the artefacts as I don't even know what that means and therefore can't do it myself. :( — Erin (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not so easy to get rid of the artifacts without affecting the rest of the image. The artifacts possibly occured during postprocessing, e.g. sharpening or denoise with sharpening. If you have postprocessed this image, you should upload the original, so someone else can give it a try. --NEURO ^⇌ 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Prominent post-processing artifacts (too much noise reduction perhaps). Kaldari (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Brahmaea wallichii insulata (Brahmeid Moth).jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 21:36:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Arthur Chapman - uploaded by Flickr Bot and Lymantria - nominated by Erin Silversmith -- — Erin (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- — Erin (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose the harsh flash-lighting is not very attractive and DOF is a bit too shallow. --Dschwen (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yes, I was concerned about the flash. I believe this photo was taken at night, which is when moths tend to come out. — Erin (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but even at night an umbrella or a diffuser can be used. --Dschwen (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support rare shot -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice. --Karel (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Despite slight DOF issues this is gorgeous. Are we seeing individual scales? Durova (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Shallow DOF, harsh light. —kallerna™ 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, good use of a shallow DOF. --Aqwis (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Lighting is unfortunate but it's hard to insist on having an umbrella/diffuser when you see an amazing moth. Shallow DOF is appropriate for subject. --99of9 (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Surfer in Santa cruz 11-8-9 -1.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 18:21:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: The image of course is much more about the wave than about the surfer.
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support To me it's more about the surfer - and that's what I like about it. Wolf (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Excellent captured dynamic range. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support perfect --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice! --NEURO ^⇌ 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support WOW This is one of the best image of surfing on commons, I think --Cesco77 (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Impressive. I'd be interested to know the processing on this one. --Dschwen (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The scene is very impressive, indeed, but I don't like the way the post-processing has been done here. The contrast is too high and doesn't look natural. Unrelated to my oppose, but again : downsampling. Pixel-size droplets of water can be seen here. Please upload the full resolution, everyone would benefit from it. --S23678 (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Fantastic. -- Jovan Cormac 08:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Overprocessed —kallerna™ 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Really an impressive and great shot....but again it got spoiled by post-processing. You really shouldn't try to "dramatize" your pictures. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- While I agree with that statement, there is clearly no point in making it :-). Apparently voters on commons dig dramatized pictures, so you cannot blame Mila for sexing up her shots. --Dschwen (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  - I guess you got a point there....it is the inconvenient truth. It is just always a pity to see all those good photos getting spoiled. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Aqwis (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose -- GerardM (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Because of the tiny surfer this picture is hardly usable as an illustration.

As I said in the image's introduction, which I assume the user did not bother to read, the image is more about the wave than about the surfer. The "tiny surfer" is a very special bonus because he provides the scale for the wave. The image does illustrate the big, beutiful and special wave just fine.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did, and I perceive the surfer not in the same way as you do ... GerardM (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again the image is about the wave and not about the surfer. That's why I do not understand what "Because of the tiny surfer this picture is hardly usable as an illustration" suppose to mean? Is it hardly usable as an illustration of the wave or it is hardly usubale as an illustration of the surfer? Would have you opposed the image, if there was no "tiny surfer" at all, and what oppose reason whould have you used then? I am just curious :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this picture looks artificial, the surfer is an unmistakable detail that is too tiny. I have imho valid reasons why I do not like this picture. I do not like it either. I oppose this for a FP GerardM (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Support - lovely image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Congratulations! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Scale Common Roach.JPG

Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 15:16:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 15:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support —kallerna™ 15:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Sharpness could be better, but at 12 Mpx resolution is very high for a close up, and downsampling improves quality. Probably the best photograph of a fish's scales we have. -- Jovan Cormac 16:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Quality is quite good, but the composition isn't exceptional. More colors or different scales shapes, or some sort of symmetry could improve composition IMO. --S23678 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support This makes a great desktop. Absolutely awesome. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Sharpness far not enough for good macro of this simple object. Right bottom part is very blurred, sorry -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per George Chernilevsky Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per George Chernilevsky. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 10:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with the other oppose voters.--— Erin (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sparkler 3.JPG

Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 15:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 15:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support —kallerna™ 15:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Hard to believe this is a photograph. -- Jovan Cormac 16:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Roquai (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak support. The arcs at the top are cut, which is generally a deadly sin for an FPC, but the image is just too nice to turn it down. Wolf (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Subject cut by crop. --99of9 (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Bad crop at top. Can be retaken easy. To Kallerna: idea is good, try better realisation -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per George Chernilevsky + CA. Would be more impressive if some volume was added to the drawn shape by "painting" around objects. (Low quality example of added volume). --S23678 (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as above --Leafnode✉ 07:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Nice, but yes the crop is unfortunate. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Crop. Idea is nice, but this is kind of a standard thing to do on New Years Eve where I'm from... --Dschwen (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Golf balls kallerna.JPG

Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 15:14:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 15:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support —kallerna™ 15:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak oppose High resolution & good quality, but colors are a little dull, and there is some image noise. There also appears to be a color balance problem (blue shift). -- Jovan Cormac 16:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Any better now? —kallerna™ 12:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose lighting, general flatness --Leafnode✉ 07:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Not special enough for FP -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I like it --Simonizer (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak oppose Nice image, could be a quality photo, but missing the wow of a featured one. Jonathunder (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:A couple of Tadorna ferruginea.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 14:21:49 (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) 14:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Contrario I really like the composition, but is too much noisy for FP... --Phyrexian (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment What a beautiful picture! Please do a denoise so I can support it. -- Jovan Cormac 16:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support The denoise was maybe a little extreme, but it's good enough for me to support already. -- Jovan Cormac 08:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: Thanks, I denoised the file.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose left-bottom duck's head almost blends with the background. Generally objects do not pop out of the background enough. --Leafnode✉ 07:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Alluvial fan, Taklimakan Desert, XinJiang Province, China, NASA, ASTER.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 13:15:43 (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 kallerna - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: 'ASTER' stands for Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer, so this isn't your standard photo. It's quite stunning.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support —kallerna™ 13:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support informative, interesting, nice quality --Leafnode✉ 08:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support WOW! And many thanks to Kallerna as uploader -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support and Question: The Aster instrument has limited vision in the visible spectrum. Do you know which bands were used for this image? And if it's the case, could you write in the image description that it does not represent true colors? --S23678 (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: I think it would be better to turn the file upside down. The water flows from the river downwards into the alluvial fan. That's ok. - The file shows now: the water flows downwards from the alluvial fan into the river.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:P1160778 Melitaea athalia.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 19:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support.--— Erin (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice macro --Cesco77 (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support One of the better butterfly macros I've seen, both in quality and composition. Sharpness is good, resolution is relatively high. -- Jovan Cormac 11:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support For Jovan Cormac. Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Very good IMO. Sharp, subject in focus, nice colors and composition. -- Petritap (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Well done! Very nice colours and good sharpness. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Posterized. —kallerna™ 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Great --Simonizer (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice --Muhammad (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Posterization is borderline, but the overall impression makes it a pro for me. --NEURO ^⇌ 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support very nice -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ocean Beach in San Francisco at sunrise.jpg

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] File:Snowfall.JPG

Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 17:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support —kallerna™ 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Almost nothing is in focus, and the composition is very very ordinary. --S23678 (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We really don't have too many photos of snowfall. —kallerna™ 13:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right, but it is not an argument for approval. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Living in a city that can recieve more than 5 meters of snow per winter (!), I am sadly not very impressed by a light snowfall. --S23678 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. As above.--— Erin (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with S23678 - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - No. Tiptoety ^talk 06:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I just think that "No" isn't a valid reason. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support I believe the foreground is in a good focus as well as many individual snowflakes are. Not an easy image to take.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Almost nothing in focus, messy composition, no clear subject. --Leafnode✉ 13:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per a number of the above. Not FP standard for me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Not FP standard for me -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Leafnode, sorry –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, as above. --Vprisivko (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gaucho1868b.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 17:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Courret Hermanos Fotogs. - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Gaucho 1868.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: Argentine gaucho, photographed 1868. Durova (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Durova (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, looks good as always! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, GerardM (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support encyclopedic. Takabeg (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Great portrait. -- Jovan Cormac 07:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Cesco77 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Of course.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /FPCBot (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 10:36:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Now, I uploaded a new full-resolution version of my picture. I tried to improve its quality by denoising some parts (e.g. sky, roof and field). Obviously, my picture arises a strong controversy. Thus, it is hard to please everybody. Please give me a chance, because as Calibas has already mentioned, it's quite frustrating. If you have other propositions how my picture could be improved, don't hesitate to tell me! Thanks:)
Support Looks good to me. -- Petritap (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Cesco77 (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- 99of9 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Most confusing nomination ever. --S23678 (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Question: Why does this nomination keep jumping to the top of the list? -- Jovan Cormac 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think the quality problems have been solved. The bright part of the soccer field is overexposed, contrast in the crowd is low, and the whole picture suffers from extreme artifacts and noise. -- Jovan Cormac 12:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support good -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per Jovan. —kallerna™ 16:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support ??? --Simonizer (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per Jovan & mediocre. Takabeg (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I think there aren't great quality problems. Good work. --.ds m. 08:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] first version

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 20:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created and uploaded by Tobi 87 - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I know the too-much-noise-in-an-ISO100-image group will decline this pic for having too much noise. However this is an excellent composition and esposure is perfect under difficult conditions. Last but not least it is very informative. Because the brightest part is where action takes place I think this version is far better than i.e. this day shot. -- Ikiwaner (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Shows the atmosphere --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Quite a lot of quality issues (noise, moiré pattern on the track, very high pixel level defects), but these are almost invisible at 2 mpx downsample. As well, I would have liked to have the ring of flags not cropped on top, but, as for my final verdict, I can't help but really like this picture. --S23678 (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Tolle Atmosphäre. -- H005 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Support~~--Cesco77 (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, great atmosphere and so on, but the noise is just too much. Noise removal & downsample? —kallerna™ 17:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Because of the size noise can be ignored. Great picture --Simonizer (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
SupportI don't think we can obtain an image without noise in this extreme low light condition. The atmosphere is beautiful. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Compression is here really too much. And also, what’s the point in having that many megapixels, when the information simply isn't there? You can downsample this picture by 2/3 and still not loose any detail. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

How everyone can prove this is wrong:

Use JPGSnoop to determine how the original image (18.7 MB big) was saved. Result: Adobe PS CS4, Quality 12
Open the image and downsample it to 66%, Save as with quality 12. Result: 11.3 MB file
Open the new file again and upscale it so it's 7149 pixels wide again. Result: 17.1 MB file
Final result: We lost 1.6 MB or 8.6 % of information.

A few years back I was thinking like you Blago when I uploaded this file as a downsampled version to reduce noise. A few weeks later we had to upscale the same image because we needed a large format print for an exhibition in Berne. That was when I realized that downsampling images is not useful for pictures here on commons. Besides: Take your favourite pictres and make some large format prints yourself. You'll notice how much harder to see noise is on paper compared to screen. Some noise might even increase subjective sharpness. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not care so much about the noise, but I do believe that the image will look better (both on the screen and on the paper), if it is downsampled.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, fine by me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Quality problems are too big IMO. -- Jovan Cormac 07:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Support. At reasonable downsampled resolutions, it seems more than good enough quality. Some images should not be evalutated only at 100% size IMO. Diliff (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Petritap (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Blago Tebi. IMO the image will be better off, if downsampled.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Durova (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Agree with Diliff. --Lošmi (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Mbz1. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I agree with the guidelines that this is the version to choose. --99of9 (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: Please note, that the picture above is the new (third) version (and not the first!!). If you think that it is of inferior quality as the first, please tell me, so that I upload this edited version as independent file. --Tobi 87 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] second version

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 08:50:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: As some of you proposed, I downsampled my picture. Is it now satisfactory for you?
~~Support~~ --Cesco77 (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Please, do not erase previous votes when trying to nominate alternative. --S23678 (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Downsampling is not a way of enhancing quality, regardless of how bad it looks at 100% view. It sure look better, but this look can be recreated anytime using non-destructive downsampling (through software, not the image itself). In about 30 seconds, you can make your own non-destructive downsampling using the the wiki software, as I did in my previous vote. The old version should be the one featured. --S23678 (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I like it much better.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Original preferred per Diliff and S23678, but I support this too. --99of9 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Not because it's not good enough for FP, but I prefer the full-scaled version. You can always downsample depending on the need you have for your image but not vice versa. -- H005 13:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with H005 --Simonizer (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps we should come to some conclusion about downsampling here. People are opposing the original because it isn't, and the alternative because it is. Not very fair for the photographer, and all this is going to lead to is people automatically downsampling without telling anybody to avoid oppose votes. --Calibas (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to come to some conclusion. Some like it better in full resolution, others prefer downsampled version. FPC process is not fair I am afraid, yet I believe one of the version will probably pass. Tobi 87, please revert the file you overwritten with the downsampled version, and let the first nomination to proceed. Please upload downsampled version as a new file. That way the reviewers will have a choice between the two versions, which will go parallel to each other, and you will have more chances that one of the two is to pass. Good luck :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Calibas that having this debate here is unfair on the photographer. ~~We need clear guidelines for if and by how much an image should be downsized, but lets establish them before we oppose images either way based on downsizing. 99of9 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)~~ EDIT: Given that the guidelines are clear, I think some votes need to be revised - even if both sizes are separate versions, the high-res version should be featured. Voting the way we are, there is a chance that both version could fail. 99of9 (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is not fair to oppose downsampled image. The passing size requirement is only 2 megapixels. The nominated image is much bigger. Some users claim that the image could always be downsampled as needed, but not the other way around, but I believe that Internet connection of some of our readers and reviewers might be too slow to load big resolution images. That's why I believe we should have both images as separete versions. Each will link to other version in the image's description. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

On image summary pages, it says something like this:

Size of this preview: 800 × 234 pixels Full resolution‎ (15,150 × 4,430 pixels, file size: 25.28 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

In my opinion it would be nice to extend this to some common widths, heights, or percentages, so that the downloader could choose their own resolution. It seems odd to have duplicates with different file names. 99of9 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For me the guidelines are very clear :

Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible.
Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality). Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file.

I see nothing indicating to voters and nominators that their image should be downsampled. I especially like the wording "in order to appear of better quality", since it's clearly stating (and it's a fact) that downsampling is just an illusion of quality, and that voters should be aware of it. Since I've started contributing on FPC, I've always tried to upload my images at the highest resolutions possible, unless strong mitigating reasons (such as keeping uploads under 100mpx...). I would personally make it mandatory for FPCs to be at the camera's native resolution, with the evaluation of quality done at a standard resolution for all nominations. This would put all nominations at the same level, encourage nominators and alleviate a lot of problems such as right now. --S23678 (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO that rule is all, but impossible to enforce. An image could be cropped, and one will never be sure, if it is downsampled or just cropped. The same with panoramas. Also, if that rule is enforced somehow, not only FPC, but Commons will loose some good and rare images IMO. Besides, if one would like to be consistent, one should oppose all downsampled images, and not only some of them. We have few that are nominated now, Would you like to go ahead, and to oppose all of them :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: Please note, that the picture above is the new (third) version (and not the second!!). So, please support the new version! --Tobi 87 (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Big quality problems. -- Jovan Cormac 11:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /99of9 (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Note: this candidate has several alternatives, thus if featured the alternative parameter needs to be specified. /FPCBot (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

[edit] File:Tasman Bridge Dusk.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 07:53:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: The Tasman Bridge crossing the Derwent River as seen from the North West of the bridge at dusk. created by Flying Freddy - nominated by AnonR -- 122.169.68.145 07:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I'm under the impression of already having saw this nomination before. I oppose because I feel the composition is not developed enough. The subject itself is quite ordinary as well. --S23678 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Thanks for the nomination, but this was very early in my photography, and overdone hdr was very much overdone. + per S23678 Flying Freddy (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, composition could be better and it's bit overprocessed. Could be QI thou. —kallerna™ 16:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as all above --Leafnode✉ 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Oregon Convention Center Dusk 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 07:35:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: The Oregon Convention Center in Portland, Oregon, USA. Taken at dusk, 4x2 segment stitched image. created by Fcb981 - nominated by Anonymous -- 122.169.68.145 07:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment That's insanely detailed. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment I've marked an apparent minor stitching error. The cable has a sudden kink in it. --99of9 (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Strong tilt on the right side of the picture (or a lot of wind). I'll remove my "oppose" if corrected. --S23678 (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't like the composition.--— Erin (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Composition isn't good enough. —kallerna™ 14:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG

Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 12:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Grand-Duc with digital manipulation (background edit, original image is hyperlinked on description page) by Niabot- uploaded by Niabot - nominated by Grand-Duc -- Grand-Duc (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Grand-Duc (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support - Nice shot, good edition. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 15:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose IMO the composition isn't on FP-level. —kallerna™ 16:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Gruß Tom (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --MittlererWeg (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Simonizer (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:SydneyUniversity MainQuadrangle panorama.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 03:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: all by 99of9 --99of9 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support as nominator -- 99of9 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Quality is very high. But composition is not optimal IMO for such a perspective. A panorama where the clock tower would be in the middle would be more appealing. --S23678 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Now that you say so, it seems so obvious. I've put up an alternative. You'll have to excuse the shadow - it is not possible to have 3 sides of a quadrangle lit while the jacaranda is in bloom :-). I'm switching my support to the alternative. --99of9 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative: File:SydneyUniversity MainQuadrangle panorama 270.jpg

Info: all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support as nominator -- 99of9 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Much better. Not perfect at full zoom, but a 1000 px high downsample shows that this is a non-issue. As an advice, I would suggest some HDR post-processing (enfuse) could be done to reduce contrast with the shaded area, but this could lead to bad results as well. --S23678 (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment The whole thing looks slightly tilted (the bottom edge of the left wing is lower than that of the right one). -- Jovan Cormac 06:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Very high quality, but I agree with JovanCormac. --Cesco77 (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Done How did you know I was equidistant from the two wings? Anyway, you're right, the correct rotation was 0.26 degrees - good eyes! I'd been lining up the verticals, but this horizontal is a much more accurate measure. Thanks for helping improve it. 99of9 (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Yes, now is perfect! --Cesco77 (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Petritap (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Perfect now. -- Jovan Cormac 16:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't like the strong crontrast. The left corner is very dark. Too much sky. Too bumpy.--— Erin (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Simonizer (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support very good, nice sky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose ?! The lighting conditions are unsuitable for an image like this. --Dschwen (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3444-7 Begrafenis bij plantageslaven2.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 23:02:13 (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 3444-7 Begrafenis bij plantageslaven.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: Slave burial at a plantation in Suriname, colored lithograph circa 1840-1850. Image donated by the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam.
Support -- Durova (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- It has historic values. Encyclopedic and elucidatory. Takabeg (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support As always. -- Jovan Cormac 08:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--GerardM (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I do not like this image. --Karel (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

* Oppose. I agree with Karel. I don't support historical value alone. --— Erin (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

- Info: is it not great that it is restored as well, has good annotations and is of historical value ?
It's just such a horrible illustration. I don't think it captures the scene well at all, and therefore isn't so great for historical value. It's good enough to go on an article, not good enough for FP. — Erin (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

When you know something about the subject matter, you will find that there is hardly any material about this subject and at that this is among the best I have seen. There are discussions about this one and similar ones.. one of the questions is "why is the boy blindfolded, what is his role". The dancing on the head of two people is to get a clue if the deceased lived a good life. The one thing that puzzles me is that everyone is in white .. this is not in line with what I know about Suriname clothing.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a bad illustration like this one can lead to misinformation. I don't think the boy was deliberately blindfolded at all, as he is wearing the same white head scarf that the woman bending over is wearing and a couple of blokes in the back. He could have easily pulled it down himself, or it slipped down etc. Just because a picture has a lot of historical value doesn't mean it needs/deserves to be a featured picture. I will change my vote to

Weak oppose though.— Erin (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:The Gypsy Girl Mosaic of Zeugma 1250575.png

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 14:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cropped

Original

Tineye search

Info: created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by Nevit -- Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Normally, PNG format for a photograph is no-go for me (9 MB for 4 MPx), but the transparency is put to good use here. I can see a lot of interesting ways this photo can be used in print media. Reproduction quality is quite high. -- Jovan Cormac 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Durova's version is better quality-wise. I'd support that version if it was masked like the original candidate. -- Jovan Cormac 06:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Good work. Thanks... --.ds m. 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Good image but the trimming isn't successful. Takabeg (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Question: I wonder your trimming idea Takabeg. What should be done to do better? --.ds m. 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Shapes of mosaic have to be kept in edge part. In short, this is Mosaic and its characteristic features must not be destroyed. Takabeg (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Trim parts of photo aren't included in mosaic. The original parts are missing. I think the picture is sufficiently characteristic and succesful. --.ds m. 01:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ Oppose per Takabeg. Would love to support this with a better edit. Durova (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Changing to full oppose; see below. Durova (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Offtopic: What is it Zeugma? Please write it in image description. --Umnik (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Done, link added. Wolf (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Wouldn't a perspective crop have been preferable? Durova (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Wolf (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
SupportWhat's wrong with the trimming? I'm supporting until someone can show me something wrong. 99of9 (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment This is Mosaic and its characteristic features must not be destroyed. Takabeg (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I did notice that! It's in the filename. I can't see any tesserae that have been deleted. So which characteristic features were you referring to? By "original parts", are you talking about the mortar behind where some of the original tesserae were originally in place? --99of9 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Durova's lighting argument. I still prefer the idea of transparency where there are no tiles, but it's nice to have Durova's natural colours as a more accurate base from which the erasing begins. --99of9 (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support very good -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Petritap (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Kjetil_r 12:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-edit from the original with perspective cropping, very extensive brightness and contrast corrections, and curves adjustment.

Comment Seeing the original and the nominator's crop makes a big difference. There are several problems with the nominated version in addition to Takabeg's comments above. Uncorrected perspective distortion is worth noting, but more important is the failure to correct for uneven and highly directional lighting. It stands to reason that the background tiles above the subject's head ought to have been made from the same stone as the background tiles behind her hair at far left, yet in the nominated version the former are nearly blown whites while the latter are quite dark. Also there's an unexplaned overabundance of red in the balance on the version nominated (no edit notes at all were provided on the hosting page, although significant digital edits to historic artwork should always be annotated). Here's hoping it doesn't offend the good intentions and hard work of the nominator to say that the result is not very successful: it really is necessary to correct for perspective and lighting before attempting that sort of edit. Have uploaded an alternate (displayed at right) which endeavors to address those issues. Over 100 layer masks were used to create this re-edit; could possibly tweak it further if people agree with this assessment. Durova (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

* Support the version by Durova only.--— Erin (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

- Question: Are you opposed to the one currently nominated? --99of9 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Oppose the current nomination, but I would support the version by Durova. --— Erin (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The background has not been extracted well. --Manco Capac (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Exército no Rio.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 10:39:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Wilson Dias/ABr - uploaded by Rafamaxpires - nominated by Econt -- Econt (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Econt (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I nominated this image because it haves a important social contest in Rio de Janeiro.--Econt (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Hey Econt, I can tell you right away that the tilt will need to be fixed. Aside from that, it looks good, and yes, the contrast is quite interesting. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I'll oppose based on what I saw on travels. This is indeed an impressive sight based on a western country point of view. However, it's extremely common in a lot of latin american countries I went to. I did not went to Rio, but I saw the armoured vehicles guarding the Peruvian president's palace in Lima, I got searched at military checkpoints in Colombia, etc. Being such a common sight for that region of the world, I would expect more from such a FPC, in composition and people's visible emotions for example. --S23678 (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment People's visible emotions? You don't go see this in Brazil, sorry. It is only appearance, the army of Brazil never can react. Even when attacked by criminals.--Econt (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Good try, but... a simple search through google can easily contradict you claim... --S23678 (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    - You are right, but I was talking about the army of Brazil, different of Colombia and Peru.--Econt (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      - Read again, I'm not talking about Colombia and Peru for Google search. As well, I personally remember sharing some common facilities with brazilian military members, and I can assure you they were not emotionless robots. --S23678 (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral The composition is really good (though it would be even better if the civilian was wearing red clothes), but quality problems are there (noise and sharpness mostly), which makes it difficult for me to support this. I cannot say how common such a sight is in Rio, but S23678 does have a point in that this isn't a war photograph and can probably retaken. -- Jovan Cormac 12:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Too much going on. —kallerna™ 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support as per Econt. Yann (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I'm with Jovan, great composition. I love the fact that there is too much going on - this kind of image always has hidden treasures if you scour it. However the people's faces have defects in them, and there are other minor quality issues that stack up against promotion. --99of9 (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support We have to few pictures about ordinary life.. Certainly when it is different from a Western experience it is valuable.. 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)This unsigned comment was written by GerardM --S23678 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PalenqueAc.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 02:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Not for voting: Comparison of the relief today and sketch showing significant differences between the two; this is a combination of loss of detail and addition of detail, causing the sketch to be idealized by the artist.

Info: created by Ricardo Almendáriz - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:PalenqueA.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: Detail drawing of a Mayan ruin at Palenque made at the time of its original excavation in 1787.
Support -- Durova (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Another perfect restoration. -- Jovan Cormac 12:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Yann (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Detail drawing and useful for related articles. Takabeg (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment uploaded an image to show the differences between the actual relief and the sketch, which turns out to be idealized and contains artistic liberty from not one, but two artists (see the en.wiki nom for more info on the history of the artwork and archeological dig), limiting its accuracy. Take it or leave it. upstate NYer 06:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- IMO the fact that the artist who drew this picture in the 18th century took some liberties adds value to the picture, rather than taking it away, by showing that "reproductions" back then sometimes were inaccurate - probably on purpose (omission of the bosom). If someone today wants to see how the actual relief looks like, he or she should look at a photograph rather than a sketch. -- Jovan Cormac 12:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  - And that's quite fine; I just wanted to give everyone the heads up. upstate NYer 17:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support in spite of any differences in the drawing to the original. --— Erin (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support 99of9 (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Stanley Steamer at 2009 Newport Hill Climb 1.png

Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 23:42:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Huwmanbeing - uploaded by Huwmanbeing - nominated by Huwmanbeing -- Huwmanbeing ☀★ 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Huwmanbeing ☀★ 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Amazing to see one of those in running condition. Durova (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Great image! Quality, composition, the mood of the people. Especially the queen. :) --Lošmi (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Question: Could you please explain why you're using PNG format? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Just for its losslessness, particularly when performing successive edits on a photo (generation loss). Thanks ~ Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Omnedon (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Somehow I fail to see how this image is special. The quality is good, but not stellar, composition is mediocre at best (several heads cut off in the foreground), and the use of the PNG format appears nonsensical. It just isn't made for photos, results in a ridiculously high file size, and given the average image quality is simply unneccessary. -- Jovan Cormac 13:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Thanks for the comments. I see what you mean about the heads; however, in dense crowd shots such as these it can be impossible to find a crop that doesn't cut through at least a few individuals, so I chose to give precedence to the placement of the central subject. As for filesize, it could be reduced as a JPEG, but it didn't strike me as ridiculous or prohibitive given that other featured images and candidates in JPEG format range much larger (some above 10-15MB). Thanks! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Too much going on. —kallerna™ 16:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Karel (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with other oppose voters.--— Erin (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Also agree with other oppose voters.PieCam (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Suggestions on how this can be improved? I'm happy to make adjustments, but "too much going on" seems an odd critique of a photo of a race. I'm also not sure how a photo of a crowd can reasonably be cropped without cutting through someone. Thanks Huwmanbeing ☀★ 03:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment It's usually the front row shots that get featurable composition. 99of9 (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Chopped heads in foreground. 99of9 (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I honestly can't believe that someone oppose this image with reasons like that. Too much going on? Well, this picture actually is about too much going on. The composition is anything but mediocre. You can't put the whole Universe in the image - something needs to be cut off. These heads in the first plan are just the part of the composition, implying that there are people on the other side, siting and watching. There's no need for them to be seen more than they are. And what does it matter if it's PNG? It's now 7,55 MB. If you save this as jpeg it's 3,71 MB. Big deal. Gee, you oppose this picture for really dull reasons. --Lošmi (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  - You'd better believe that, if one wants to oppose an image a reason could always be found :) --Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative

Alternative 1.

Question: Would any of the oppose voters support this alternative version which has the heads removed and is a JPG file? Note that I needed to use the clone tool to get rid of the tops of some heads as I didn't want to crop off the shadow or wheel. I also narrowed it slightly to make up for decreasing the height. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I would. --99of9 (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:天安门夜景.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 06:42:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gate of Heavenly Peace, Beijing.2009-11-1

Info: created by Charlie fong - uploaded by Charlie fong - nominated by Charlie fong -- Charlie fong (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Charlie fong (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Lošmi (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Only one, redlinked category. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose High image noise. HDR can do wonders for shots like these. -- Jovan Cormac 10:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Look at the haloing, it has either had tonemapping or perhaps a highlight reduction (which is a form of tone mapping). Noodle snacks (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Interesting, I didn't realize that at first. But still, better results can be created by mapping multiple exposures rather than reducing the highlights on a single shot. -- Jovan Cormac 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment On a side note, it would be helpful if you used latin characters only in the file name, since older non-Chinese systems cannot display Chinese characters correctly, while all computers worldwide can handle the latin alphabet. -- Jovan Cormac 10:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - noisy and blurry.--Avala (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing bad composition-wise, but nothing exceptional as well. The light trails would look better if they were longer. But mainly quality issues as above. --S23678 (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Not sharp enough IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Image motion. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Very noisy. Takabeg (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Along The Riverwalk.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 04:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Corey Leopold - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, I think it is very clear, with the light river, but too dark, I think, but it is not opaque when I zoom it. -- Lê (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of low quality (heavy noise, low amount of details) and composition (intrusive foreground elements). Overall snapshot feeling. You obviously did not understood. You should ask advice from regular contributors BEFORE nominating further images. Next time, I might be a little less polite. Google translate : Bạn rõ ràng đã không hiểu rõ. Bạn nên xin lời khuyên từ những người đóng góp thường xuyên TRƯỚC cử thêm hình ảnh. Tiếp theo thời gian, tôi có thể là một chút ít lịch sự.--S23678 (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Doesn't look like a snapshot to me. And what exactly "Next time, I might be a little less polite" means? --Lošmi (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Means I was very polite to take him by the hand another time, as it has been done numerous times in the past by me and other contributors. Mr Lê has difficulties understanding FPC quality concepts, but doesn't seems to learn from his mistakes. So if the childish way doesn't work once again, I might be tempted by a more direct approach next time. --S23678 (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I agree that it's not as bad as previous candidates, but still quite far from FP quality. -- Jovan Cormac 10:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice image, not even close to a snapshot, should not have been FPXed.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, S23678, your impoliteness is far more damaging than Lê's nominating a few pictures that may not be of the quality you expect of an FP candidate. --Aqwis (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Aqwis. It is impolite to bite newbies, who have difficulties understanding English.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry, but the noise isn't the only problem here, low details for me --Cesco77 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Bad quality. —kallerna™ 15:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Subpar. Takabeg (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:P1150918 Cantharis livida.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 16:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, definitely! --Aqwis (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, idem ! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Simonizer (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Support WOW --Cesco77 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Lack of detail, noisy. inisheer (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Good composition, bad quality --Muhammad (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per inisheer. -- Jovan Cormac 06:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry but this one cant be a FP imho! My last try wasn´t even voted because of not such obviously failures! The magnification is fine but the beetle is nothing than unsharp mush! Sorry. --Leviathan (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Awesome capture. Quality is not so good on full view, but it's still very good. Downsampled to 1700 x 1200 (minimum size) looks perfect. --Lošmi (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, thats the worst argument I´ve read here for a long time! So we take, for example, a little unsharp 40mp (10000x4000) panorama and downsample it to 1700x1200 so it looks perfect?! The loose of quality is uninteristing or what??? Sorry but voting like this is pure nonsense!! Why should we upload the highest possible resolution if you vote by downsampled pictures? Cant understand... --Leviathan (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Leviathan, you said "Sorry but this one cant be a FP imho! My last try wasn´t even voted". Do you think this is a right argument to oppose? --Cesco77 (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    - "...wasn´t even voted because of not such obviously failures!" That was what I've written. And the next sentece tells why I think so. The link to my nomination is only an example. --Leviathan (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      - This picture may be "blurry and noisy", but it's not overexposed and its composition is, frankly, a lot better than that of your candidate. --Aqwis (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        
        Actually it does make a sense. Images for web are usually in resolution of 72 px/inch, and for printing are in 300 px/inch. Thus, size of downsampled image and printed image might look similar. Full resolution of printed image won't be that big as full resolution on the web. That's what I taught. --Lošmi (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Bad quality. —kallerna™ 13:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that, if the image was just a little bit better quality, and had just a little bit more details, it would not have been safe for the kids to look at

--Mbz1 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, in my opinion very good shot --romazur (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose perhaps oversharpened, not convinced about quality inspite of the excellent composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per inisheer. Our FP standard for macros is quite high. --NEURO ^⇌ 21:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Karel (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support. Striking.--— Erin (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vineyard in Napa Valley 4.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 19:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I like the vibrancy of the colors, but the composition is messy :branch on the left, line of horizon right on top of the trees, background trees blending with the "main tree". --S23678 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I might agree with branch on the left, but what could have been done to avoid "background trees blending with the "main tree""? I wanted to show the hills behind the vineyard, so I could not play with the DOF.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a different perspective would have worked, but as a personal opinion, I think a shallower DOF would have had more advantages than disadvantages. --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, interesting and really visually appealing –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as S23678 - there's no one focus point. Everything blends together making this picture very messy. Here shallow DoF would be appropriate. --Leafnode✉ 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose cluttered composition --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

[edit] Edit 1 (cropped out branch on the left)

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as with original one --Leafnode✉ 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose cluttered composition --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per top discussion, less the branch --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

[edit] Alternative 1

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as with original one --Leafnode✉ 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose cluttered composition --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per top discussion again, less the branch --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Please, try some self-criticsm before nomination. Just look to number of your nominations! Images are good, but do you really think, that every of them should be FP. --Karel (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Did I understand you right? Did you opposed my "good image" because in your opinion I nominate too many? I'd like to let you know that I could nominate as many images as I want, and you could oppose them all, or better yet you could ignore them, as I am ignoring your nominations that are way too boring to even bother to review, but please do not tell me what to do. Okay? Thanks. To answer your question, yes, I do believe that the nominated image (as well as others I nominated) is good enough and different enough from other FP to get promoted. Of course I never know what reviewers would say. How, for example, should I have known that one will oppose an octopus taken in a wild with "no wow" reason, and in few days is to nominate a boring, dull fish taken in a local aquarium :) BTW here's advice for you - please try not to look at the name of author/nominator, just look at the image itself.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forget to express that my Oppose is becasue I think (as others here), that this image is not good enough for FP. That´s all. But additinally I just wanted to give you friendly advice, but from your nearly hysteric reaction I see, that it was not the best idea. Regards, --Karel (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So was my reaction "hysteric" or "agressive" :) Ah, anyway... I am glad you understood that I could do just fine without your "friendly advices". Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Commons:Staying mellow - please bear that in mind. You usually aggressively respond to any critics of your behavior or your works. People have right to have their own opinion, to state it, and to have different opinion than yours. And if there are no strict rules in given subject, they can use any criteria they want. --Leafnode✉ 07:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- The thing is that I know your take on self nominations, Leafnode, which is the same as Karelj has. It is against the rules. I have the right nominate as many images as I'd like to. I will just repeat that a good and fair reviewer should not even look at the nominator's name, but only at the image.Oh and btw could you please provide few diff of my so called "agressive responds"? I mean, if it is "usually" you should be able to provide quite a few diff, don't you, Leafnode? --Mbz1 (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  - I won't start a new pointless discussion. Just be mellow! :) --Leafnode✉ 13:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    - IMO it is a bad tone to claim something without be able to provide the diffs to confirm the claim. I've no more questions to you. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      - I haven't said that I can't provide diffs. I just said that it won't help in anything --Leafnode✉ 15:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
        
        Of course it will help, if you are to provide the diffs. How should I know what of my comments you consider to be "aggressive", if you do not want to point them out to me? How would I be able to correct my "usually aggressively respond", if I have no idea what you're talking about :) --Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
        
        OK, but only if it'll help you ;) [2] [3] [4] [5] And yes, I find it aggressive - negative reaction towards one's personal opinion. --Leafnode✉ 16:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
        
        Thanks so much. They are really soooooo agressive and there are soooo many of them that I believe it is a time for another block :) Everything is clear to me now. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

Confirmed results:
Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral => not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vatican angle° 0.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by juanRubiano - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Lê (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of quality (overexposure, noise, resolution) and composition (tilt and crop) problems --S23678 (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Support and be it only to remove that once again precipitate FPX by S23678. Where is your problem? Resolution is many times higher than required, can't see any noise, overexposure only in few spots, tilt is hardly noticeable and can be fixed, and after all, even if these were issues, they can't really destroy the excellent atmosphere in this picture. I'd really like to see more constructive criticism here than to piss of anybody who nominates pictures that just don't meet your personal preferences when it comes to technical standards. FPX is for clearly insufficient pictures, that's it. -- H005 22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Overexposure masks all details on both sides of St-Peter's basilica, noise is very visible on the out-of-focus areas, image resolution (the amount of detail in an image) is very low on the sides, tilt is very visible and the cross on the top of obelisk is cropped. You may think it deserves to be FP because of it's atmosphere, and I respect your choice, but given what I said, FPX was clearly sufficient to me. About personal preferences, I'm wondering what's FP is, if not a bunch of personal preferences... Your support is as much a personal preference as my FPX is. As for constructive criticism, Mr Lê has some difficulties understanding FPC rules, as it's suggested by his nomination history and some votes about it's nominations. There's some limit at holding someone by the hand, hence the lack of constructive criticism in my comments. --S23678 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never heard or read of Lê but can't see any evidence from this nomination that he/she "has some difficulties understanding FPC rules". It's a nice image with IMHO only minor technical flaws, and I value the mood and content of an image higher than technical perfection to a level that only enthusiasts like us here see who inspect every single pixel, but not all those millions of Wikipedia users who just will see a nice image. Sorry for being a bit harsh with my comment, no offence intended, I just found it very annoying to see repeatedly what in my humble opinion is a misuse of FPX. -- H005

23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Per S23678. -- Jovan Cormac 07:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Because of an unbalanced composition. Takabeg (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing can fix or make up for the crop at the top. --99of9 (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Morning after Halloween.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 02:24:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
What is that, exactly...? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It is exactly what the image's name explains: "Morning after w:Halloween" :) The girl is still wearing a costume (horns on her head,and something on her legs), the guy has special shoes. IMO this image is like a story with no beginning and no end. We do not know what happen on Halloween party and why they were sitting like that for half-an-hour (I found them like that and went for a walk. When I came back half an hour later nothing changed in their position). We do not know how it will end up.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you read that recent news article (can't find the link) about an old man who was laying dead for 3 days in front of his house, with his neighbours thinking it was an Halloween decoration... Were this couple breathing? --S23678 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I have not read the story. Let's hope my image's story is a happy one :)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

link --S23678 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Subject too dark, not particularly interesting --Leafnode✉ 22:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh... I didn't see the guy at first. Thought it was someone peeing in the bushes... :-) --Dschwen (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Daniel, I would have never allowed myself to upload image of "someone peeing in the bushes" leave alone to nominate it for FP :) --Mbz1 (talk)

Well, users have asked for more nominations of people... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Too hard to see what is going on. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment I'm undecided on this one. I'll think about it a bit more. Also, thanks for trying something different; we need more photos like of interesting things like this. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean something different from Golden Gate Bridge :) Thank you for your comment! --Mbz1 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not just that, but yes. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Support I think it's an interesting composition. I'd love to know what their story was. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Agreed. What an interesting composition. JalalV (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Great confusion. --Karel (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons given.--— Erin (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chalciporus piperatus LC0182.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 00:48:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Nice work, but it is unnecessary objects (look a note). Some of the mushroom cap is a local overflow. Can You fix it ? - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please don't place quality comments on the image description page. Use the candidate page instead. They are for the world to see, and only confuse users who don't know about FPC. -- Jovan Cormac 07:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Support works very well for me --AngMoKio (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Simonizer (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Kosiarz-PL 10:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Light reflection spoils it. Yann (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Quality image, but don't have nothing special to be considered FP --Cesco77 (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I rather enjoy the simplicity. --Calibas (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Two extra objects distract me in this photo. The little stick on the top right of the cap, and the background feature at the back left of the cap. --99of9 (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Candidatas a imágenes destacadas

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

[edit] Formalidades

[edit] Nominación

[edit] Crear una nueva nominación

[edit] Para votar

[edit] Reglas

Contents

[edit] Propuestas

[edit] File:Baha'i House of Worship, Evanston.jpg

[edit] File:Zlin Żelazny Góraszka 2.JPG

[edit] File:Dead Vlei 3.jpg

[edit] File:Proskowski-Lobkowitz CoA.jpg

[edit] File:Napa Valley.jpg

[edit] File:I35W Collapse - Day 4 - Operations & Scene (95).jpg

[edit] Alternative

[edit] File:Papilio.machaon.7553.JPG

[edit] File:3Hagebutten 2008-2-10.JPG

[edit] File:Love What is It.JPG

[edit] File:M-danilov-2009-01.jpg

[edit] File:Romanbathparis.jpg

[edit] File:Pilsudski 1910 1920 LOC hec 14263 restored.jpg

[edit] File:The burning of Columbia, South Carolina, February 17, 1865.jpg

[edit] File:Paeonia lactiflora 'Bowl of Beauty'-2459.jpg

[edit] File:Horse market in Lorenzkirch.jpg

[edit] File:Cygnus olor LC0201.jpg

[edit] File:Asa & Jätkäjätkät @ Bar Kino - Asa, Joska Josafat & Kari Hulkkonen.JPG

[edit] File:Asa & Jätkäjätkät @ Bar Kino - Asa 10.JPG

[edit] Alternative version

[edit] File:Guisard - Milky Way.jpg

[edit] Image:Brombeerlaub.jpg

[edit] File:Ochlodes sylvanus MichaD.jpg

[edit] File:Brahmaea wallichii insulata (Brahmeid Moth).jpg

[edit] File:Surfer in Santa cruz 11-8-9 -1.jpg

[edit] File:Scale Common Roach.JPG

[edit] File:Sparkler 3.JPG

[edit] File:Golf balls kallerna.JPG

[edit] File:A couple of Tadorna ferruginea.jpg

[edit] File:Alluvial fan, Taklimakan Desert, XinJiang Province, China, NASA, ASTER.jpg

[edit] File:P1160778 Melitaea athalia.jpg

[edit] File:Ocean Beach in San Francisco at sunrise.jpg

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

[edit] File:Snowfall.JPG

[edit] File:Gaucho1868b.jpg, featured

[edit] File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg

[edit] first version

[edit] second version

[edit] File:Tasman Bridge Dusk.jpg, not featured

[edit] File:Oregon Convention Center Dusk 1.jpg, not featured

[edit] File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG

[edit] File:SydneyUniversity MainQuadrangle panorama.jpg

[edit] Alternative: File:SydneyUniversity MainQuadrangle panorama 270.jpg

[edit] File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3444-7 Begrafenis bij plantageslaven2.jpg

[edit] File:The Gypsy Girl Mosaic of Zeugma 1250575.png

[edit] File:Exército no Rio.jpg

[edit] File:PalenqueAc.jpg

[edit] File:Stanley Steamer at 2009 Newport Hill Climb 1.png

[edit] Alternative

[edit] File:天安门夜景.jpg

[edit] File:Along The Riverwalk.jpg

[edit] File:P1150918 Cantharis livida.jpg, not featured

[edit] File:Vineyard in Napa Valley 4.jpg

[edit] Edit 1 (cropped out branch on the left)

[edit] Alternative 1

[edit] File:Vatican angle° 0.jpg, not featured

[edit] File:Morning after Halloween.jpg, not featured

[edit] File:Chalciporus piperatus LC0182.jpg, not featured

Views

Personal tools

Search

Navigation

Participate

Toolbox

In Wikipedia