Commons:Candidates a imáxenes destacaes

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

Si creyes qu'hai dalguna semeya o imaxe na andecha abondo guapa como pa tar ente les imáxenes destacaes, entós pues amestala na llista de candidatures editando nesti enllaz. Si hay consensu xeneral depués de 10 díes, la imaxe tresferiráse a imáxenes destacaes.

Featured picture candidates

File:Andricus kollari - Capanne di Marcarolo.JPG

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 17:36:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Andricus kollari - Capanne di Marcarolo.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Andricus kollari - Capanne di Marcarolo.JPG

•  Info created by Andou - uploaded by Andou - nominated by Andou -- Andou (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Andou (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Paris moderne. Les Tuileries, le Louvre, et la rue de Rivoli, vue prise du Jardin des Tuileries.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 09:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Paris moderne. Les Tuileries, le Louvre, et la rue de Rivoli, vue prise du Jardin des Tuileries.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paris moderne. Les Tuileries, le Louvre, et la rue de Rivoli, vue prise du Jardin des Tuileries.jpg

•  Info created by Charles Fichot - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not really "outstanding" amongst other similar artworks. I have seen better and more vivid paintings. --Bthv (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Wadi Rum BW 2.JPG

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 07:52:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Wadi Rum BW 2.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wadi Rum BW 2.JPG

•  Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Central Park path.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 23:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Central Park path.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Central Park path.jpg

•  Info all by Paolo Costa (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 01:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral What makes this so special? Not that it's a bad picture, it's lovely, just not very special... --Bthv (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't know, I was looking at my NY pictures and this one caught my attention. Must be the peaceful feeling one gets in those paths in the middle of one of the most chaotic megacities... I also liked the colors. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Hmm... Sorry. I do not find actual serious _problems_ in this picture. So don't get me wrong, it is very good as a picture, a nice add among the other material in Commons. One might find the picture quite useful as well. But the thing is: I really do not find the exceptionality which would make this picture clearly overcome many other good pics of parks. The problem (if I can enunciate it so) is quite much the same like with the sunset pictures here for example – many of them are pretty but they cannot all be featured. Keep it up nevertheless! --Ximonic (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Tropidacris collaris MHNT vol.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 22:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Tropidacris collaris MHNT vol.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tropidacris collaris MHNT vol.jpg

•  Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Citron (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Great detail, huge EV. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support  ■ MMXX  ^talk 00:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 01:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful, congratulations. --Cayambe (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support An image with a definitive wow-factor. What beautiful color and detail. --Bthv (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Parmeliopsis ambigua - lichen - grünliche Schneepegel-Flechte.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 20:09:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Parmeliopsis ambigua - lichen - grünliche Schneepegel-Flechte.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parmeliopsis ambigua - lichen - grünliche Schneepegel-Flechte.jpg

•  Info created by Norbert Nagel - uploaded by Norbert Nagel - nominated by Norbert Nagel -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral as nominator. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose because not taken with a Hasselblad H4D-60 camera. The resolution is to small for me. Is this OK for you? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC) But of course, this is nonsense. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice. Tomer T (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --AlphaEta (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 01:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tamba52 (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Lotus 4.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 20:05:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Lotus 4.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Lotus 4.jpg

1619

9

488

99

2112

1408

What is that?

•  Info created by Gil Abrantes (flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I like the image, but what is that bumpy (?) thing on the top right (see annotations)? Is that a part of the road or some kind of image distortion? Tomer T (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   Comment its called a ripple strip it defines the edge of corners on race tracks Gnangarra 01:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  That's obvious, but there is some kind of bumpiness/distortion there. Tomer T (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 01:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose the crop it too tight for my liking given the original there is plently of room to give the car some space Gnangarra 01:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I do not oppose the FP, but I think that Gnangarra has a point about the crop being too tight. I would support a slightly wider crop. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

   Comment I re-upload image with another crop version. Now it's better? --Sasha Krotov (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  better for me,  Support FP. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Araña Mandaio 07-0-2006 10.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 17:51:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Araña Mandaio 07-0-2006 10.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Araña Mandaio 07-0-2006 10.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lmbuga-- Miguel Bugallo 13:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Weak support It's not a perfect portrait (taken in 2006 with a Nikon 8800), but perhaps wov. I want to know what you think-- Miguel Bugallo 13:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 Neutral--Miguel Bugallo 19:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 Comment seriously, your nominating an image and not even supporting it. Gnangarra 01:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• (I'm not sure if I understand you) With this nomination I can learn if people think: Currently I do not understand that this image has been promoted to QI. I'm not sure..., if QI...perhaps FP?--Miguel Bugallo 07:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 Comment I don't see nothing wrong with nominating a picture while abstaining from the vote. Tomer T (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Tomer T (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Achird (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Waldermarsudde Panorama February 2012.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 18:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Waldermarsudde Panorama February 2012.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Waldermarsudde Panorama February 2012.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- ArildV (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 01:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Achird (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Image:Colostygia aqueata Buchstein01.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 14:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Image:Colostygia aqueata Buchstein01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Colostygia aqueata Buchstein01.jpg

•  Info created by User:kulac - uploaded by User:kulac - nominated by User:kulac -- Kulac (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose bad background--David საქართველო 16:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• I´m not familiar with the procedures here, so i´m probably wrong and the picture still has a bad background, but may i refere you to en:Crypsis? --Kulac (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• I am not sure about the quality, but "bad background" is really a poor argument. This is called camouflage. Yann (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support quality is good imo, and the photo is a good illustration of crypsis. Tomer T (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--Umnik (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral. Butterfly has changed color or is it just a coincidence of colors? --Sasha Krotov (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Weak support Excellent example of camouflage with high educational value. Sadly, it's a quite grey and dull picture with low contrast. -- Achird (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral Not a bad background. A very good example of camouflage. I think the DOF isn't optimal though and many interesting parts seem to be more blurry than needed. According to my own experiences these specific animals aren't so timid and fly away easily anyway so one can concentrate on optimal technical settings quite safely. --Ximonic (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Oia Santorini Blue Domes.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 14:31:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File::Oia Santorini Blue Domes.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File::Oia Santorini Blue Domes.jpg

•  Info created by Danbu14 - uploaded by Danbu14 - nominated by Danbu14 -- Danbu14 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Danbu14 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose a bit CA, tilted, seems too bright, not a fortunate crop on the left. Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think there is no tilt, but the irregular shoreline makes it appear that way though. --Bthv (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bad composition: a lot of empty sky and white foreground. Yann (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 01:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Image looks to be way overlighted. lacking detail and object is not clear, too much background noise/distraction from the actual subject. --Bthv (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tight crop to the left. Tilted and distorted by wideangle lens. "Empty" foreground and bad composition. -- Achird (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Keisarinnankivi (Helsinki) - 2.JPG

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 12:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Keisarinnankivi (Helsinki) - 2.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Keisarinnankivi (Helsinki) - 2.JPG

•  Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think it's not sharp enough + could be brightened. Tomer T (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Common Jezebel Delias eucharis by kadavoor.JPG

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Common Jezebel Delias eucharis by kadavoor.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Common Jezebel Delias eucharis by kadavoor.JPG

•  Info created by Jkadavoor - uploaded by Jkadavoor - nominated by Jkadavoor -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I believe it's too noisy to be featured. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 11:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Maurilbert. And crop is really tight. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Image:Aceros cassidix - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 2011-02.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/Image:Aceros cassidix - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 2011-02.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Aceros cassidix - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 2011-02.jpg

•  Info created by Fiorellino - uploaded by Fiorellino - nominated by Fiorellino -- Fiorellino (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Fiorellino (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose too tight crop, not sharp enough. Tomer T (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Tomer T --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Winterporling Polyporus brumalis.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Winterporling Polyporus brumalis.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winterporling Polyporus brumalis.jpg

•  Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Citron (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I like it--Miguel Bugallo 22:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support WOW factor due to the ice crust. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --AlphaEta (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 01:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tamba52 (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ricinus communis - Fruits.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Ricinus communis - Fruits.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ricinus communis - Fruits.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Moonik (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Moonik (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose I find the composition too busy. Tomer T (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose the main: the fruits are too unsharp. The DOF is too low. The distracting background kills the composition. If we see only the sky in the background and the plant slightly tilted, then I give my full support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Yes the fruits are not sharp enough. But I like the composition. Vegetal elements are a bit distracting maybe, but the building surely not (IMO).--Jebulon (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Royal Coat of Arms of Greece.svg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Coat of Arms of Greece.svg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Coat of Arms of Greece.svg

•  Info created by Sodacan - uploaded by Sodacan - nominated by Katarighe -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support The author is one of the best heraldists in "Commons", and this work is particularly good (and "heraldicaly" correct, obviously). Very nice and difficult SVG coat of arms IMO. + Very pleasant to be seen in detail.--Jebulon (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support per Jebulon -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Jebulon is right --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Nice work. --Ximonic (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg

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

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

•  Support -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice and interesting. A short visit to User:Sodacan's galleries is a real pleasure.--Jebulon (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support per Jebulon -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you for the hint, Jebulon --Schnobby (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- I like it. Really royal. :) TrebleSeven (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:ST vs LOU - 21.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:ST vs LOU - 21.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:ST vs LOU - 21.jpg

•  Info created & uploaded by PierreSelim - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Nice --Katarighe (Talk) 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Nice!  ■ MMXX  ^talk 22:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support thank you for the nomination --PierreSelim (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support great. I like it :)--David საქართველო 16:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Nice action shot. Maybe a bit oversatured, but not sure. FP.--Jebulon (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support As Jebulon, and a little bit of noise, but very nice and good action shot--Miguel Bugallo 20:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I've tried this kind of shots myself. Not easy stuff. Anyways, the moment offers a big wow in this pic. --Paolo Costa (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport.jpg

•  Info created by Christopher Neugebauer on Flickr - uploaded and nominated by Cloudbound -- Cloudbound (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cloudbound (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too dark, but this can be corrected. I made a try: File:Qantas A380 lands at Melbourne Airport edit.jpg. Yann (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Overall, I like the atmosphere the colors create. But I too think it might bee too dark. I think a more mild brightening would be better, for exmaple File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport-edit2.jpg. Tomer T (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Early-morning light is one of my favorite shooting situations, so I think the general atmosphere of the image is fine. Darker blue colors high in the sky transitioning to reddish toward the horizon is consistent with what I'd expect from the timing of the shoot, and indeed I think it makes the aircraft stand out well against the sky. However, 1/1000 is an awful short exposure time for this kind of lighting, so I agree that it's probably way darker than it appeared in person. I like what you did with the second edit... I'd definitely support that file. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I guess the world is a small place. The photographer is an acquaintance of mine. He has a username here with a couple of uploads (User:Noogz). JJ Harrison (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--Noogz (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC) (By the way, if consensus is that it needs to be brightened, I'd be more than happy to do this from the original RAW)
•  Oppose This image has nothing exceptional. Perhaps QI but not FP. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I may be wrong but, looking at other featured airplane pictures, I think this one is not among the best. There is very strong vignetting and underexposure I'd say. --Paolo Costa (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose What's so special about this composition? I don't see it, I have hundreds of photo's like this one. --Bthv (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Alt

Featured picture candidates/File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport.jpg

•  Support Tomer T (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Still nothing special, though the underexposure has been corrected a tad. --Bthv (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mandarin Oranges (Citrus Reticulata).jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Mandarin Oranges (Citrus Reticulata).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mandarin Oranges (Citrus Reticulata).jpg

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jovianeye
•  Support -- Jovian Eye _storm 04:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose for now. The colours look oversaturated to me, especially in the red shadows under the leaves (and the leaf-green looks a little overdone too). I would support a different version of this picture if it is reprocessed. --99of9 (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have reprocessed the image from RAW with standard picture control. The earlier version used vivid. --Jovian Eye _storm 12:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    •  Support Good for me now. --99of9 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral Wouldn't mind it being featured. But I think, as 99of9 that saturation should be lowered a bit. Won't support also because I don't like the leaves being under the mandarins, it looks kind of too "forced". --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Changing the picture processing has reduced the saturation a bit. As for the leaves, I never forced them down, its the way they were packed and kept at the store. :) --Jovian Eye _storm 13:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Sevilla 01.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Sevilla 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sevilla 01.jpg

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

File:Card puncher - NARA - 513295.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Card puncher - NARA - 513295.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Card puncher - NARA - 513295.jpg

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

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

Thanks! Yann (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Now this is an example of a nice old image. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)S
•  Support--Miguel Bugallo 22:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support/Sasha Krotov (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--Econt (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew(1939)a.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew(1939)a.jpg

•  Info created by unknown Polish photographer - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Miniapolis -- Miniapolis (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Miniapolis (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't like the pink color. It should be converted to shade of gray. See File:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew 1939.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think it's worth Wikipedia featuring, but not Commons. The image is extremely blurry, noisy and shows poor detail. It also has this pink tint. I know it's a very old shot but then, should every historic picture be featured? I don't think so, that's why we have a valued images section. This is not among commons best historic material by far imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --AlphaEta (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Paolo Costa --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Yann and Paolo Costa. it has good EV but the quality is not that great.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 23:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG

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

Featured picture candidates/File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG

•  Info created and uploaded by Poco a poco, improved versions by NorbertNagel and Aleks G and nominated by Poco a poco -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose-The window through which it is taken is not centered--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Ggia (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--Miguel Bugallo 19:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Colchicum automnale.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Colchicum automnale.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Colchicum automnale.jpg

•  Info created by User:Cquoi - uploaded by User:Cquoi - nominated by User:Cquoi -- Cquoi 20:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- User:Cquoi (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose unsharp details, I would like to see more of the stamens. Tomer T (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment bad file name imo... One could be confused and doubt if it is the name of the plant or the animal. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I see nothing sharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unsharp --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg

•  Info created by Brian Gratwicke - uploaded by me (through File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)) - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Info A very good shot of a critically endangered species of a frog. Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Cute frog, harmonious composition, nice colours, excellent picture. / Achird (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--H. Krisp (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--Sasha Krotov (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose harsh flashlight and the resulting strong shadows ruins this pic imo. --mathias K 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I just want to note that this species is critically endangered. To my understanding of reading its profile in the IUCN red list website, the species is very rare and there are very few individuals left, and that's what makes the picture so valuable in my eyes. I'm not sure you can say the image is reproducible, so I think quality issues are secondary in this case, or at least less important than usual. Your opinion is your opinion, but I just wanted to share my point of view for a productive discussion. Tomer T (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I understand the argument with the critically endangered. And yes you are right, this is a very valuable image. But imo this is a very good argument for a VI not for a FP. Especially in this actual case I think the picture quality could have been better if an other equipment would be used. For example a ring flash or maybe a reduced flash power with a little longer exposure. Also the composition with the leaf "in" the eye isn`t the best imo. But it looks like this picture will be promoted anyway so my oppose wont be that bad. ;-) Greetings mathias K 15:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Support The flash light is a minus. Definitely. Should have used some other illumination system (there are many for frog photography, like a macro ring led flash light). But detail is good, the composition is awesome, and it is an endangered species. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  weak support nice frog. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- It's critically endangered. Why not? TrebleSeven (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--P0lyzoarium (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:DoemitzerBruecke2.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:DoemitzerBruecke2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:DoemitzerBruecke2.jpg

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

File:Olympic and Titanic.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Olympic and Titanic.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Olympic and Titanic.jpg

56

720

133

133

1600

1206

scratch

1544

1138

52

64

1600

1206

...

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

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

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

Alt

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Olympic and Titanic.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Olympic and Titanic.jpg

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

File:Kaveri river.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Kaveri river.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kaveri river.jpg

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

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

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

Featured picture candidates/File:El Tres de Mayo, by Francisco de Goya, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:El Tres de Mayo, by Francisco de Goya, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg

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

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

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

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

•  Support -Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Machecoul - Abbaye Notre-Dame-de-la-Chaume (1).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Machecoul - Abbaye Notre-Dame-de-la-Chaume (1).jpg

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Selbymay (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Selbymay (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I like it. Tomer T (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Isn't it a bit soft ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  SupportGood -- Raghith 08:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nice, good composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Isn't it a bit yellow ?--Jebulon (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose unsharp (out of focus) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Carschten. I am suprised this made it through QI. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose nice, but I see too many unsharp areas at the main object. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose unnatural colours, not really sharp. --Berthold Werner (talk)
•  Oppose Colors not ok. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - color of the clouds and sky is perfectly plausible and natural, so I don't doubt the rest of the image is very similar in color to the actual scene at the time –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Colors OK for me. Yann (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Niveoscincus metallicus - Austin's Ferry.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Niveoscincus metallicus - Austin's Ferry.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Niveoscincus metallicus - Austin's Ferry.jpg

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

File:Corvus tasmanicus - Collinsvale.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Corvus tasmanicus - Collinsvale.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Corvus tasmanicus - Collinsvale.jpg

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

  YES, minimum 60MP and only using of a Hasselblad H4D-60 or a better camera. We have NOW the rule of minimum 2MP, not a fantasy resolution of more. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. I can start to vote for your images with contra.

  •  Comment You are right, minimum 2MP is the present rule and this is why I didn't vote against this image. Please note, that I just didn't support the promotion to FI. I don't understand why you become so emotional and announce to vote against my images. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Based on a sustainable POV, this image will be one of the first, which could be affected due to a new rule on image resolution. Currently we delete images that fall short to the 2MP rule. Again: our current image and FPC guidelines is not the only set of valid arguments for or against images. It provides us with a set of rules that are widely accepted within the community and therefore rather uncontroversial. As of now, there is no limitation on the reasoning for opposition or support of an image. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Beautiful autumn day.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Beautiful autumn day.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beautiful autumn day.jpg

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

File:Glass of red wine.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Glass of red wine.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glass of red wine.jpg

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

File:Metropolitan opera 1937.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Metropolitan opera 1937.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Metropolitan opera 1937.jpg

2558

6

315

426

2879

1750

Scratch (?)

41

123

280

385

2879

1750

Some spots here

1067

187

181

117

2879

1750

Scratch

938

257

186

111

2879

1750

Scratch

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

File:Metropolitan Opera House, a concert by pianist Josef Hofmann - NARA 541890 - Edit.jpg, Alt version

•  Neutral Here is a new version, adjusted the brightness/contrast locally and globally, also removed most of the spots and scratches.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 00:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I think it's much better. Tomer T (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Perhaps renominating it would be better, so that it gets a chance. This one's voting period is reduced at this point. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Featured picture candidates/File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Force India 2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Force India 2.jpg

•  Info created by Gil Abrantes (flickr), uploaded and nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment considering that the photo was taken from far away and the car is moving at high speed picture turned out good --Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --David საქართველო 06:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose the composition and cut isn't OK for me: to much unatractive foreground, lo less car, not enough place in front of the car. And the main: the car ist unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. / Achird (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral -- I agree, if only the background was a little bit different. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. --ELEKHH^T 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. --Pitlane02 _talk 13:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - must agree with Alchemist-hp. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Khost children in 2010.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Khost children in 2010.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Khost children in 2010.jpg

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

  I'm afraid many of these children have no parents--Sasha Krotov (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per Yann and Jebulon. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Jebulon. / Achird (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support very nice aesthetically, has EV.. of course.. US miliatary propaganda... Personal rights warning etc.. should not be arguments for a FPC IMO.. may-be for a deletion request... but not here. Ggia (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support our troops. USA! USA! USA! - But seriously, this is one of the best shots in Category:Children of Afghanistan so far. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 04:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  SupportGood -- Raghith 08:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment When I nominated this picture I was acutely aware that this was USM work. But despite that this work humanizes and highlights the Afghans. Secondly its hard to say 'kill all Muslims', 'bomb,bomb!' while looking at this picture.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.141.235 (talk • contribs)
  • So it is a non-neutral nomination with a political purpose ??--Jebulon (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wonderful picture. Really, it's a brilliant shot. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  about you comment, Commons:Featured_picture_candidates General rules: Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome.--Sasha Krotov (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

•  Oppose per Jebulon --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tamba52 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Eilean Donan Castle Panorama..jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Eilean Donan Castle Panorama..jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eilean Donan Castle Panorama..jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

•  Support Great! -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice!  ■ MMXX  ^talk 00:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful! Royalbroil 03:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support good nice image --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Automeris caterpillar.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Automeris caterpillar.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Automeris caterpillar.jpg

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

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

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Russia. Moscow Region. Winter pine wood, lake Kratovskoe area.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Russia. Moscow Region. Winter pine wood, lake Kratovskoe area.JPG

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

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

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

Featured picture candidates/File:20081206 Alexandros Grigoropoulos december 2008 riots Sina Street Athens Greece.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:20081206 Alexandros Grigoropoulos december 2008 riots Sina Street Athens Greece.jpg

969

190

936

1107

1964

3000

This is The Law faculty of Athens. Ggia (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

419

950

236

301

1964

3000

This burning flames are from the building of the Library of European Law. Ggia (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

File:Hallstaviks kyrka January 2011d.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Hallstaviks kyrka January 2011d.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hallstaviks kyrka January 2011d.jpg

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

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

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Ice cream van, Helsinki (Helsingfors).JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ice cream van, Helsinki (Helsingfors).JPG

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

 I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)