Commons:Candidatas a imaxes destacadas

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Candidatas a imaxes destacadas noutras linguas:

Shortcut: COM:FPC Estas son as imaxes candidatas para convérterse en imaxes destacadas. Por favor teña en conta que isto non é o mesmo que ser a imaxe do día.

Para consultar o arquivo de propostas vexa: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log

Hai unha lista das imaxes destacadas organizada por data.

Véxase tamén: quality image candidates e Photography critiques

[edit] Procedemento formal

[edit] Proposta

Se vostede cre que está en presenza dunha imaxe destacada ou creou unha imaxe que cumpre os requisitos para considerarse valiosa, que ademais dispón dunha descrición e licenza apropiada, copie o nome da imaxe na caixa do formulario (incluído o prefixo Image:), a continuación do texto que contén a caixa:

Deseguido, debe incluír de xeito manual un enlace á paxina que creou na cima da lista de propostas.

[edit] Votación

Pode usar os seguintes modelos para expresar o seu apoio:

{{Support}} ( Support) / {{Concordo}} ( Concordo)

ou estoutros para expresar oposición:

{{Oppose}} ( Oppose) / {{Discordo}} ( Discordo),

Tamén pode usar:

{{Neutral}} ( Neutral) / {{Neutro}} ( Neutro)
{{Comment}} ( Comment)
{{Info}} ( Info:)

Por favor intente incluír algunhas palabras que xustifiquen porque lle gusta ou disgusta a imaxe, en particular cando o voto sexa contrario. Lembre tamén asinar (~~~~).

[edit] Políticas e normas sobre candidatas a imaxes destacadas

[edit] Regras xerais

After the end of the voting period the result will be determined on day 15 after nomination (shown in the time-table below). So the voting period is two weeks (plus the hours until the end of day 14). Votes added on day 15 or after are not counted.
Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
Nominators can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by simply writing "I withdraw my nomination".
Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a depository for wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
Pictures can be taken from the list if they have no support (not counting the nominator's) on day number 7 (day of nomination + 7).

[edit] Regras para as imaxes candidatas

A imaxe pode convérterse nunha imaxe destacada se cumpre as seguintes condicións:

Dispor dunha licenza apropiada (por suposto)
Contar como mínimo con 5 votos de apoio
A relación entre apoio/oposición debe ser de 2/1 como mínimo (unha maioría de dous terzos)
Non poden ser imaxes destacadas dúas versiións diferentes da mesma imaxe, só aquela co maior número de votos.

Para as instrucións sobre como proceder coas propostas antigas, vexa Template talk:Featured pictures candidates#What to do after voting is finished.

[edit] Featured picture delisting candidates

Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. These require 2/3 majority (and a minimum of 5 votes) agreeing to delist from featured pictures. If there is not 2/3 agreeing to delist it, it stays as a featured picture. For these, vote {{Keep}} Keep (it deserves to be a featured picture) or {{Delist}} Delist (it doesn't deserve to be a featured picture). Please provide a link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page). Otherwise the same rules as above apply. Please use this link to add a new removal candidate.

[edit] Guidelines for nominators

Below you can find some informal rules picture should match:

Resolution - graphics located on Commons may be used not only for viewing them on a screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices would be used in the future neither, so it is important that pictures being nominated have a resolution as high as possible. A resolution of at least 2 million pixel (e.g. 2000 x 1000) seems reasonable right now.
Focus - every important object on the picture should be sharp.
Foreground and background - foreground and background objects may be pretty distracting. You should check if something in front of the subject doesn't hide some important elements and if something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example if the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
General quality - pictures being nominated should have good technical quality.
Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
- almost all sunsets are pretty, and most of such pictures are not different in the essence from others,
- nightshots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
- beautiful does not always mean valuable.

Not every rule has to be matched, e.g. a picture may have a low resolution, because higher resolution photos cannot be taken (subject may be dead), or the event is not going to occur again.

[edit] Guidelines for Evaluating Photographs

There are several criteria for evaluating images.

On the technical side, we have exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.

Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.

Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The “Rule of Thirds” is a good guideline for composition and is an inheritance from the painting school. The idea is to divide the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines, thus dividing the image into thirds horizontally and vertically. Centering the subject is almost always considered a negative practice. Subjects of interest are placed in one of the “interest points”, where horizontal and vertical lines intersect (4 interest points are created). Horizons are never places in the middle, for they “cut” the image in half. They are placed either in the upper or lower horizontal line. Main idea here is NOT to center subject.

Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better over the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the “unnatural” nature of the pose would be a good photograph.

Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or substract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and viceversa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, etc.

Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.

Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is acomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.

Color is important. Over saturated colours are not good.

Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the “feel” to the touch….

Perspective refers to the “angle” accompanied by lines that dissapear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.

Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.

Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.

Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or color AND texture, etc.

Symbolic meaning or relevance…. Well, this is where opinion wars start…. A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.

Images can be culturally biased by the photograher and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image “speaks” to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, hapiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations….

[edit] Above all, Be polite

Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be be the same as someone elses. Choose your words with care.

Happy judging… and remember.... all rules can be broken

Page refresh: purge this page cache

To add your nomination to the list: Open this & add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list: {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:FILENAME}}

[edit] Featured Picture Candidates

[edit] File:Schloss Chenonceau.JPG

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 19:31:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Wladyslaw Sojka - uploaded by Überraschungsbilder - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dead Vlei Duene.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 19:25:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:The Congos concert Stockholm 2009-10-31--15.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 17:32:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Korall - uploaded by Korall - nominated by Korall I love their expressions. I hate myself for not cappturing the hand of the man to the left. I am sorry that I do not know who is who in the group. Maybe someone can help me?-- Korall (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Korall (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Apophyllitestilbite.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 16:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

apophyllite-(KF) with stilbite - Nasik quarry,India - (10.3x7.2cm)

Info: created by Archaeodontosaurus (talk) - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus (talk) - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus (talk) -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Excellent quality, nice green colours inside crystal --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Amsterdam Centraal Station2.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 16:38:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Detroit Publishing Co. - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Amsterdam Centraal Station.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: 1890s photochrom print of Amsterdam Centraal railway station.
Support -- Durova (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Multichill (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Petra Jordan BW 26.JPG

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 16:18:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner|
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Homless Woman.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 03:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: - Creator - http://www.flickr.com/photos/livenature/ Uploaded by Barun - Nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Barun (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Question: Is she smiling ? --Muhammad (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment It does seem that way. A sly smile.
Oppose "This media file is uncategorized." —kallerna™ 13:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Question: Does this woman know that her picture is shown online? --AngMoKio (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lincoln conspirators execution2.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 02:46:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Alexander Gardner - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Lincoln conspirators execution.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: Execution of conspirators to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. From left to right: Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, and George Atzerodt. July 7, 1865.
Support -- Durova (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:FEMA - 12695 - Photograph by Barry Markowitz taken on 02-19-2005 in American Samoa.jpg

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2009 at 12:03:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Barry Markowitz, FEMA - uploaded by Multichill - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Now, I know not everyone is going to agree with me (hey, what else is new? :P) but I think that this image has the potential, not only to be featured, but to be Picture of the Day, December 25th 2009. Why? Well, in the past, we've only ever had one christmas themed image for POTD, and that was more of celebrations during Christmas than the event itself. So I decided that I'd try and get a festive FP for Commons. For 2 weeks I went looking through the various yuletide categories, examining hundreds of images of lights, decorations, presents, food, people and trees, seeking out the biggest and best for Christmas day. I found many grand and expansive images, but it seemed as if each of them had been specially crafted to look great in thumbnail, but horrible at full size. Onward and upward I pressed, discarding 12Mpx images left and right, determined to bring home the perfect picture. I had tried every search term I could think of, and had almost given up, when at the bottom of the screen, I spotted a tree. Not a large tree, not a tree draped with lights and streamers, in a city square or surrounded by rosy faced children; but a small tree, decked with simple red bows, perched atop an errant boulder, with a somewhat elderly gentleman holding it steady. Having already convinced myself that my search had been fruitless, I nonetheless clicked on the link, idle curiosity and utter exhaustion piling atop one another to see just why this man looked so proud of what was a very small and obviously weathered and threadbare plastic Christmas tree. "What possible reason" thought I, "could someone have for being happy with that scrawny thing?" It was then that I happened to glance at the caption. That tree, that small, weathered tree had been sucked out with the storm surge of en:Cyclone Olaf, a Category 5 cyclone that struck American Samoa in February 2005. Reading the article, I realised that the gentleman in the picture, Ioasa To'o, was from Tau Island, the hardest hit area by the storm. This is a man who quite possibly lost most of his worldly possessions, had certainly seen friends have all they owned ruined, and had his home island devastated. It was then that I realised I had found what I had been searching for. This was what the spirit of Christmas is about. Not gifts, or carols or lights, not even about trees. What this photo says to me is 'hope'. Even amongst disaster, the true spirit of Christmas, embodied in this tiny, unassuming tree, shines through. Just this once, I'm ignoring quality all together. For a picture like this, I wouldn't care if it was 100 pixels by 400 pixels. Wherever you may be, a Merry Christmas to you all. May it be as insightful as mine has been.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Ok, ok you've persuaded me :) Personally, I don't care much about the "spirit of Christmas", but this picture has a story, so I don't mind not so good quality. I'm not sure about the tilt, though. The tree maybe looks better fully vertical, but still... --Lošmi (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Yea, it could be POTD, but not featured. Too much compressed and too much contrast. —kallerna™ 14:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with kallerna. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Martian Dust Devil Trails.jpg

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 12:26:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by NASA/JPL/University of Arizona - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: This image shows twisting dark trails criss-crossing light coloured terrain on the Martian surface. These trails are now known to be the work of miniature wind vortices known to occur on the red planet.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Fascinating picture, I believe it's almost impossible to detect what it's about w/o reading the description page... My brain couldn't decide what my eyes were staring at: sheer fabric? Human tattooed skin? An eerie impression for sure. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Fantastic, nice and ultra-rare -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support per George above. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Durova (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Painted Cliffs.jpg

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 12:10:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support There is some info at http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=1490 about this rock feature. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Very pretty. --99of9 (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Strong support Excellent --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Yes, nice --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Wow! --Karel (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Beautiful! Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Are those rocks on the foreground really that blue? —kallerna™ 09:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: These are wet stones reflect the blue sky. Look are natural in this case. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  - There is this edit (File:Painted Cliffs auto wb.jpg). I have no preference but the natural white balance is quite blue when the sun has well and truly set. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Support - Peripitus (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I love rocks, and those are beautiful no doubt! Yet, I do not like the composition, and I cannot help it. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Durova (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kremnica (Kremnitz, Körmöcbánya) - Plague Column (part2).JPG

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 11:53:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Quality is not exceptionnal (blown reflections in the golden parts, noise...). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Squirrel Posing at Logan Pass.jpg

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 07:27:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by AlexAH - uploaded by AlexAH - nominated by AlexAH -- AlexAH (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- AlexAH (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Cute squirrel. Unfortunately there is a blue fringe running along the horizon of the background (and the sky is blown). --99of9 (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose sorry - nice squirrel but the sky/background is overexposed. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, 12th AU Summit, 090202-N-0506A-337.jpg

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 05:52:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jesse B. Awalt - uploaded by Martin H., edited by Grondin - nominated by 67.220.5.154 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Support -- 67.220.5.154 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak oppose I'd love to promote this, but the image noise is hard to ignore. -- Jovan Cormac 08:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment, I suggest denoising this. --Aqwis (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

How would one go about de-noising the image? I really like this one, and want to help get it featured. Really, what I'm asking is what needs to be done to eliminate noise. Thanks. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

- - There are several tools available for denoising. I have found Neat Image to be quite good (they also have a demo version, which can do close to everything the full version can. -- Jovan Cormac 17:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Even if this was fixed up, I find the eyes way too scary on the guy in the background. Otherwise I would have supported. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Info: created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice. --99of9 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Really good! --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Fur is unsharp, also lots of image noise. -- Jovan Cormac 08:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Good subject, but have Low DOF, low details and too noise. --Cesco77 (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)--
Support Useful and good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per Cesco77. Yes it's useful and good, but that alone doesn't make it a FP IMO. --NEURO ^⇌ 18:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose good and useful image, but it does not meet the technical requirements for FPs. --High Contrast (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Australian Flag Flying animated.gif

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

The Australian flag flying in a strong wind.

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

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

Oppose Too few frames, could have been much smoother. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- And much heavier, and not possible due to the FPS limit on most DSLRs. Diti the penguin — 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure how valid a defense that is. My DSLR has a full-fledged video mode, as do many currently on the market. Point-and-shoots have had that sort of capability for more than half a decade, too. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    - Yours may do, but what about people like me, who buy standard DSLRs from Nikon (D40) or Canon (450D)? This category of DSLRs is the most common, and not every people is willing to buy every new camera that comes to the market. Diti the penguin — 13:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      - Whatever the reason is does not make this look any smoother. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      - I do not know what you mean by "standard" DSLRs; Nikon sells DSLRs at several price points with video recording capability, including the Nikon D5000, Nikon D90, Nikon D300S, and Nikon D3S. I'm not as familiar with Canon's models, but my point is that video recording capability is not unusual at all in modern cameras. It's certainly not restricted to high-end models. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I would think a video would have been much a better medium to illustrate this through; Commons is a repository of video as well as images, after all. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I chose the format in preference to video because I believe it will be more widely used than a video equivalent. IMO usefullness is easily as important as frames per second. Not all movies can be squashed into 256 colours, but flags are great candidates. 99of9 (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:University Hall Northwestern.jpg

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

Info: University Hall, Northwestern University Author - Madcoverboy - nominated by Anon -- 122.169.82.44 05:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Crop is terrible. -- Jovan Cormac 07:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Image is not centred on the building and the crop is poor. Image is tilted more to left side of the building. --Korman (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose crop --Leafnode✉ 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose unusual perspective. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose ce n'est pas bien. Pardon. -- Autofan45 (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Photographs of architecture should have their perspective corrected as much as possible, for example to make naturally-parallel lines appear parallel in the image rather than converging railroad-tracks style; many digital tools exist by which to accomplish this. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment At this point of look perspective are OK, but crop non-acceptable. More space and top and bottom need --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose crop --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Info: created by Shane T. McCoy (US Navy) - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: The yellow attachment is a MILES. And yes, I'm aware of the large space on the right, but I think the picture benefits from the off centre composition. Feel free to disagree. :P
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support WOWWWW --Muhammad (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Amazing composition. -- Jovan Cormac 09:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Enough to get on your POTY list? :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  - That's what I thought as well, though the mosquito below is also a good candidate. -- Jovan Cormac 11:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Too noisy 4 me. —kallerna™ 11:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, considering that he's walking around in cloud of smoke, some noise is to be expected... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Regretfull oppose i like military photos, but this really too noised. :( -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I hate image noise, but in this special case I think it actually enhances the image, since it looks like the soldier is walking through dirty, green fog. -- Jovan Cormac 15:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I agree about the noise. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support. Noise adds to this image.--Silversmith Hewwo 21:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Good composition of a subject that is quite tricky to photograph. Jopparn (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support The look in the eye gets me. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Notyourbroom, long time no see! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Jklamo (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Support - Peripitus (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Durova (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Noise. --NEURO ^⇌ 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Exceptional composition. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mosquito Tasmania.jpg

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

Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice. -- Zoo Fari 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support More disgusting than nice. Noting the abdomen swollen with blood. I hope you killed it. ;) Durova (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support like Durova, disgusting but also wow! -- Ra'ike T C 08:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Good. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support One of our better macros. Resolution is acceptable given the high magnification. -- Jovan Cormac 09:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Disgusting WOW ;-) Great macro! --Cesco77 (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I do get some Dexter-feelings from this one! Very good! Jopparn (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Excellent! --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Awesome :o Fale (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice arm :P Noodle snacks (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hehe, ;) --Muhammad (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Muhammad (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support a sip more blood ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Torre del homenaje.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] File:Kardo-lenin-kopia.jpg, not featured

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

Dmitry Kardovsky. «V. I. Lenin in Gorki village, of Pereslavl uezd». 1926.

Info: Dmitry Kardovsky. «V. I. Lenin in Gorki village, of Pereslavl uezd». 1926. — Created, uploaded and nominated by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC) -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment "Source: Own work"??? Please supply more detail. -- Jovan Cormac 22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- This photo is my own work. Clarified at the file description.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose it does not look like a photo and the justification or the explanation of the "own work" may explain things but it unreadable to me. GerardM (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry? It's a photo of the picture on the wall, of about 4*2 meters size. The picture is by Kardovsky, published in 1926; the photo is by myself, made in 2009. Where is the mess?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Question: . I assume it's in the public domain like this other Kardovsky painting? --Silversmith Hewwo 11:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Pre-1917 paintings are not protected in Russia. Thinking about the current law -- Kardovsky died in 1943, thus in 2013 all his works will be in PD. But, as far as I know, Kardovsky's date of death removes his work from the coverage of the current civil law because of the regulations of the Law of Implementing a Civil Codex. That law states that only works of the authors who died after 1943 are under this current 70-years protection.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Silversmith Hewwo 01:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Yiddish WWI poster2.jpg

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

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

[edit] File:Woodbridge isothermal chart3.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 13:54:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Great.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ Oversaturated, also resolution is too low for a landscape shot IMO. -- Jovan Cormac 15:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Jovan, this image has the colours and the saturation of the former Kodachrome 25 film. I worked with Kodachrome 25 in the years 1974–2001 and know what I say. Kodachrome 25 has been one of the best films with great sharpness, and I try to bring the Kodachrome 25 feeling into the digitally world. Maybe you worked in the past with other films and likes therefore another feeling with soft colours and saturation, but that is your own window to the world of photography and is ok for your own images. - This image has the resolution 2,602 × 1,645 pixels (4.28029 pixels), that's more than the double of the needed 2 million pixels. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Hmm, after seeing this Kodachrome picture I'll have to say you're probably right, the saturation seems to be a feature of that specific film, though I would consider that image on the verge to being overexposed as well. Nevertheless, I believe that photography (especially landscape photography) should mirror reality as closely as possible, and I've certainly never seen grass as green as it is in your candidate shot. If I understood you correctly, this is a digital image that you edited to look like it was taken with the Kodachrome film. If that is the case, it should be clearly marked as auch ("retouched" template).
    As for the resolution, this is a matter of personal taste; I myself believe that landscape shots should have at least 6-8 Megapixels unless they are absolutely spectacular. -- Jovan Cormac 08:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    - I retract my vote of "Oppose", the color issues have now been corrected AFAIC. Still don't know whether to support, though. The view is rather ordinary. -- Jovan Cormac 07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Actually leaning toward oppose due to the tight crop, but I do have an unhealthy-powerful zeal for giant photostitched landscapes, so I think that's probably influencing my opinion too much. —Notyourbroom (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose composition --Leafnode✉ 14:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Leafnode, what is your problem with my composition? Please see this Featured picture. It has the same composition. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  
  And as it could be expected, I don't like the composition of the second photo either. And now why - horizon is in the middle, and as a consequence in this particular shot there's too much of the bottom part - even grass is rather boring. IMO this picture would be better with some cropping. --Leafnode✉ 12:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, very nice landscape. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, IMO bit boring composition. —kallerna™ 21:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: I made an update, cropped the Blumenwiese and made the green colour of the grass light. The "Blumenwiese" is an essential part of the high mountain region of Europa and IMO an important part of this image. Therefore I leaved a part of it. I didn't found any word for the "Blumenwiese" in the English language. JovanCormac, Leafnode and Kallerna, I hope, the colour and the composition is now ok. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak Support. I like it - almost perfect. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Avala (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Great composition. You want to walk into it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice foto of mother nature. No oversaturation of colors and great composition. --Korman (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Support good composition for me and nice landscape --Pudelek (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Support nice composition, i like the meadow in the foreground --Jklamo (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Lošmi (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the fpc category: Places/Natural

[edit] File:CoA Città di Milano.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 09:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Fale - uploaded by Fale - nominated by Fale -- Fale (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Coat of Arms of Milan city (Italy)
Support -- Fale (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Support – Molto ben fatto. --Ernie (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose A valued image for sure, but not nearly as spectacular as this recent nomination. -- Jovan Cormac 15:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Contrario Purtroppo devo concordare con Jovan, ma se puoi continua a creare gli stemmi dei comuni italiani con questo livello di accuratezza, ne abbiamo bisogno su Wikipedia ;-). I have to agree with Jovan, by the way please continue creating CoA with this high graphic level of italian municipalities, we need it on Wikipedia ;-) --Phyrexian (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Jovan --Jklamo (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 07:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

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

~~I withdraw my nomination~~

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

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

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

Support A lot of educational value in a difficult photo to reproduce. --99of9 (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Like Ernie, I think that denoising would only hurt this picture. -- Jovan Cormac 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Ultra-rare shot! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Durova (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak oppose I know it's hyper-rare shot and so on, but the noise is just too much for me. NASA can make better photos (even though this was taken in 2002). —kallerna™ 21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore Fantastica! Too educational value and rarity to care about quality, that is not so bad... --Phyrexian (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Peripitus (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Lošmi (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the fpc category: Natural phenomena

[edit] Delisting candidates

[edit] File:Brombeerlaub.jpg

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

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

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

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

Delist per nom. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep -- Petritap (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Timetable (day 15 after nomination)

Sat 14 Nov → Sun 29 Nov
Sun 15 Nov → Mon 30 Nov
Mon 16 Nov → Tue 1 Dec
Tue 17 Nov → Wed 2 Dec
Wed 18 Nov → Thu 3 Dec
Thu 19 Nov → Fri 4 Dec
Fri 20 Nov → Sat 5 Dec
Sat 21 Nov → Sun 6 Dec
Sun 22 Nov → Mon 7 Dec
Mon 23 Nov → Tue 8 Dec
Tue 24 Nov → Wed 9 Dec
Wed 25 Nov → Thu 10 Dec
Thu 26 Nov → Fri 11 Dec
Fri 27 Nov → Sat 12 Dec
Sat 28 Nov → Sun 13 Dec
Sun 29 Nov → Mon 14 Dec