Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Skip to current candidates Skip to current delist candidates

Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. Please note that this is not the same thing as the picture of the day. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

Skip to: Add a nomination Guidelines for evaluating photographs Current candidates Delisting a featured picture Current delisting candidates Rules Contents

[edit] Formal things [edit] Nominating [edit] Guidelines for nominators Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates: Resolution - Images (save animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 x 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible. Scans - While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on preparation of various types of images that may be useful. General quality - pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality. Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable provide it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{RetouchedPicture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. 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 aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others, night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime, beautiful does not always mean valuable. Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolours, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution. For instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy - of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist - is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable: Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy. Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are none the less wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art. Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents - which may not be at all artistic - nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject. Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards. Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." Photographs On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field. Focus - every important object in the picture should normally be sharp. 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 often less interesting than placing the subject in one of the “interest points”, the 4 intersection between these horizontal and vertical lines intersect. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they “cut” the image in half. The upper or lower horizontal line is often a good choice. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image. Foreground and background - foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head). Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than 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 subtract 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 vice versa, 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, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc. Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects. Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished 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. Colour 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 disappear 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 colour AND texture, etc. Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition. Symbolic meaning or relevance…. Opinion wars can begin here…. 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 photographer 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, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations…. You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. [edit] Adding a new nomination If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box (including the File: prefix), after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:YOUR-IMAGE-FILENAME.JPG. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page. Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list: {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:YOUR-IMAGE-FILENAME.JPG}} [edit] Voting You can use following templates: {{Support}} ( Support), {{Oppose}} ( Oppose), {{Neutral}} ( Neutral), {{Comment}} ( Comment), {{Info}} ( Info:), {{Question}} ( Question: ), {{Request}} ( Request: ). You can indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The votes cast not only serve as a way to determine whether a picture will become Featured or not, but also as valuable feedback for the author/nominator, giving that person insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the work/nomination. For this reason, civic virtue demands that at least when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected for nomination by someone) a valid reason is given for doing so. Unreasonable reasons for opposing are: No reason given at all (obviously) "I don't like it", or other empty assessments "You can do better", or other reasons criticising the author/nominator rather than the image Ideally, reasons are given in English as it is by far the most widely understood language on Commons, but of course, any language may be used to state a reason (therefore, language problems are not an excuse for failure to provide a reason for opposing). Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Anonymous votes are not allowed. [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. For these, vote {{Keep}}  Keep (it deserves to be a featured picture) or {{Delist}}  Delist (it doesn't deserve to be a featured picture). If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box (including the File: prefix), after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include: Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader); A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page); Your reasons for nominating the image and your username. After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal. [edit] Featured picture candidate policy [edit] General rules The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and 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 and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the text {{withdraw|~~~~}}. 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 repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5) Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator). Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator. [edit] Featuring and delisting rules A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions: Appropriate license (of course) At least 5 supporting votes Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with the higher number of votes. The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that are familiar with the voting rules. [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 the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken. [edit] See also To edit the list of nominations go to: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list For a chronological list, see Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological For an archive of previous nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished Basic list of photography-related terms Quality image candidates Valued image candidates Photography critiques Help:Scanning

[edit] Table of contents

Contents 1 Formal things 2 Nominating 2.1 Guidelines for nominators 2.2 Adding a new nomination 3 Voting 4 Featured picture delisting candidates 5 Featured picture candidate policy 5.1 General rules 5.2 Featuring and delisting rules 6 Above all, be polite 7 See also 8 Table of contents 9 Featured picture candidates 9.1 File:At close grips2.jpg 9.2 File:TautropfenRose2.JPG 9.3 File:Maro stern.jpg 9.4 File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.jpg 9.5 File:Latuff nazi camp 2.png 9.6 File:Fumarole solfatara 2005.jpg 9.7 File:Granada, 1970.1.jpg 9.8 File:Chartres - cathédrale - annonciation.jpg 9.9 File:Little Red Lighthouse on a dark day.jpg 9.10 File:Jugo de naranja.svg 9.11 File:Library of Congress Great Hall - Jan 2006.jpg 9.12 File:Petra Jordan BW 43.JPG 9.13 File:Royal Naval college-3.jpg 9.14 File:Peine del viento de Eduardo Chillida.jpg 9.15 File:Grand Prismatic Spring and Midway Geyser Basin from above.jpg 9.16 File:Low pressure system over Iceland.jpg 9.17 File:Karl Emil Otto Fritsch-Denkmaeler Deutscher Renaissance-1891-Nuernberg-Pellerhaus zu Nuernberg Aegidienplatz 1605 Facade.jpg 9.18 File:Eilean Donan castle - 95mm.jpg 9.19 File:Petra Jordan BW 36.JPG 9.20 File:Arquebus img 0410.jpg 9.21 File:Blitze IMGP6376 wp.jpg 9.22 File:Phellinus igniarius Oak 2009 G2.jpg 9.23 File:Flag-map of the world.svg 9.24 File:Aloe dichotoma -Keetmanshoop, Namibia-21Aug2009-2.jpg 9.25 File:Hoodoos in the Bryce Canyon National Park.jpg 9.26 File:A starry sky above Death Valley and Orionid.jpg 9.26.1 Edit 1 9.27 File:Sergei Rachmaninoff LOC 33968 Cropped.jpg 9.28 File:Lotus in a garden in Suzhou.JPG 9.29 File:Nanjing Road, Shanghai.JPG 9.30 File:Teheran US embassy propaganda grasp.jpg 9.31 File:The Hazards From Hazards Beach.jpg 9.32 File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Portert van twee jonge Balinese danseressen TMnr 10004678b.jpg 9.33 File:Suvanto 2009-10-02 02.JPG, featured 9.34 File:Lotus in Suzhou.JPG 9.35 File:Yu Garden in Shanghai.JPG, not featured 9.36 File:Sossusvlei.jpg, featured 9.37 File:Gaillardia fanfare centered.jpg 9.38 File:Canyonlands National Park, Utah.jpg 9.39 File:Thomas Bresson - Fort Lachaux-1 (by).jpg, not featured 9.40 File:Thomas Bresson - Fort Lachaux (by).jpg, not featured 9.41 File:Thomas Bresson - Fort de Roppe (15) (by).JPG 9.42 File:ComputerHotline - Fort du Bois d-Oye (by) (10).jpg 9.43 File:El Golfo-Lanzarote.jpg, not featured 9.44 File:Kingswear and the Dart s1.jpg, featured 9.45 File:Cedar Breaks National Monument partially.jpg 9.46 File:Osiris E3751 mp3h8829-e.jpg 9.47 File:Sleepy Bay Sunrise.jpg 9.48 File:Rozeta Paryż notre-dame chalger.jpg 9.49 File:Machliny Małe panorama 2009-05.jpg 9.50 File:Kata-Tjuta.jpg 9.51 File:After the war a medal and maybe a job2.jpg 9.52 File:Isfahan Lotfollah mosque ceiling.jpg 9.52.1 edit 1 9.53 File:Coulées Basaltiques at Jaujac 3.jpg 9.54 File:Romanian Patriarchal Cathedral - external mosaics.jpg 9.55 File:Utricularia calycifida - front.jpg 9.56 edit 9.57 File:Clonfert Cathedral Mermaid 2009 09 17.jpg 9.58 File:Lizard in Ibiza.jpg 9.59 File:Seal Rock from Cliff House.jpg 9.59.1 Alternative 9.60 File:Civil War steeplechase2.jpg, not featured 9.61 File:Steeplechase2.jpg, featured 9.62 File:Johannes Honterus - Denkmal in Kronstadt.JPG, not featured 9.63 File:Dirt road in winter.JPG 9.63.1 edit 1 9.64 File:Sheikh-Lotf-Allah mosque wall and ceiling 2.jpg, featured 9.65 File:Devil's Golf Course in Death Valley NP.jpg 9.65.1 alternative 9.66 File:Alberi e crocefisso a Dobbiaco.JPG, not featured 9.67 File:Mongolian Lama.JPG, featured 9.68 File:Lula e operários.jpg 9.68.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 10 Delisting candidates 11 Timetable (day 5 after nomination) 12 Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting) 13 Closing a featured picture promotion request 13.1 The bot 13.2 Manual procedure 14 Closing a delisting request

[edit] Featured picture candidates

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page cache

[edit] File:At close grips2.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2009 at 04:15:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by H.D. Gridwood - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:At close grips.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: The best digital photograph I've yet found of WWI: two US soldiers charge a bunker past the bodies of two German soldiers against a desolate background.
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:TautropfenRose2.JPG

Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2009 at 00:19:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment --Well nice, clean, saturated and with high visual impact photograph. Unfortunately the main droplet should be in focus and very sharp, which isn't the case. May be a DOF too shallow ? Sting (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Maro stern.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2009 at 00:15:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created and uploaded by Keta - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 21:46:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Antonio de Leon y Gama - uploaded by Garrondo - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1.jpg by Garrondo and Durova-- Durova (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Illustration of the Aztec calendrical system from the first major work of Aztec archaeology, published 1792.
•  Support as conominator. -- Durova (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support as conominator.--Garrondo (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment - Why the long file name? ZooFari 22:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Eighteenth century book titles tended to be long. Durova (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I recently complained that a lot of the FP restorations don't have much visual impact. But this one does, well done on the find. --99of9 (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Latuff nazi camp 2.png

Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 20:38:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by en:Carlos Latuff - gif version uploaded by Pieter Kuiper, converted to png and uploaded by Liftarn, - nominated by Pieter Kuiper -- Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support One of Latuff's more accomplished cartoons, awarded 2nd prize at an international contest, notable in its own right as the subject of controversy. -- Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: no problem with it being on the featured list, but I think we should generally not feature current propaganda images on the front page. - Jmabel ! talk 04:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Uh? Propaganda? :o Diti the penguin — 07:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Hanay (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Why? Diti the penguin — 07:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very neat illustration, I which I had this level! Diti the penguin — 07:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ranbar (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Please state a reason for opposing as a courtesy to the nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose, the illustration is neither "notable in its own right", nor "of high artistic merit", "of high historic merit" or "of high illustrative merit" (see "Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents" under "Commons:Featured picture candidates->Formal things"). --Kjetil_r 07:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose very politically incorrect (and wrong, but that's an opinion). Tomer A. 07:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support High quality scan of a very interesting and controversially famous cartoon. -- JovanCormac 07:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Insulting the memory of the 6 million murdered in the Holocaust will cause a lot of damage to this project. It is enough that this garbage is in commons, but to put in the main page? How dare you? Unfortunately I can'y say that I'm surprised considering the nominator. Indeed, it is a very sad day for commons. Kooritza (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Yoavd (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --רוליג (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Why? Let me tell you why, because that image is not only propaganda, it is propoganda of hate, but yet it is not even added to category "propaganda". Why it is propaganda? There's absolutely nothing that let one to compare the wire of the concentration camps of The Holocaust and West Bank security fence. The former was built to prevent innocent victims from getting out, the latter was built to prevent terrorists from entering in. that cartoon is highly offencive to many people, who lost relatives in the w:The_Holocaust, who are w:The Holocaust survivors.Could you imagine featuring Muhammad cartoons? Why that man in cartoon is crying? He probably cries because he just lost a son, who committed homicide bombing inside Israel. One of the biggest reasons for nominating that was retaliation to me personally. And besides technical quality of that is absolutely horrible. What in the world is sticking out of the man mouth (white from one side, and red from the other)? BTW no normal cartoonist and/or painter will paint his name in the very midlle of his work--Mbz1 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - against politicization of the commons. Deror avi (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose, per Mila and Kooritza. And per myself, because myself feels personally insulted by what this drawing claims to represent. Wolf (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Polemic, I liked!--Econt (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment This picture shouldn't get nominated here. This topic is far too controversial. Religious conflicts will never get solved and mostly (like in this conflict too) both sides act inhuman. "Imagine there's no countries - It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too" - John Lennon Imagine --AngMoKio (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - propaganda or not, somehow I quite doubt if it follows the quality guidelines. As for the propaganda... gee... as far as I know, the Hamas rules in Gaza strip, and if there are still refugee camps there, it's because they serve their intentions... --Yuval Y § Chat § 10:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose גוונא (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fumarole solfatara 2005.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 20:22:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Kleuske - uploaded by Kleuske - nominated by Kleuske -- Kleuske (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kleuske (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Difficult to see what it is, it gives no sense of scale or direction. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Granada, 1970.1.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 16:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Schnobby (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Request: Could you add more info about this picture? Granada is a big city - was this nice shot maybe taken in some part of Alhambra? Also, info about the camera used would be nice - I guess you didn't have a D90 those days? :-) I think that the original photographer should also be mentioned in the Author field. --MattiPaavola (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chartres - cathédrale - annonciation.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 08:35:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eusebius (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Little Red Lighthouse on a dark day.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 07:39:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by b k - uploaded by JotaCartas - nominated by JotaCartas -- JotaCartas (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- JotaCartas (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is far below the 2Mpx requirements.

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--Eusebius (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Jugo de naranja.svg

Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 01:59:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Danilo94 - uploaded by Danilo94 - nominated by Danilo94 -- Danilo94 (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Danilo94 (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing special, quality not great (unrealistic shadow, discutable geometry of the straw, basic errors in geometric optics). --Eusebius (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Low encyclopedic value compared to a photograph of orange juice. Geometry not exceptional. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • After think a little more, I regret my comment: of course there is lots of value since this could be well used as a symbol in various tables etc. Anyway, nothing special in geometry and therefore still opposing. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Library of Congress Great Hall - Jan 2006.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2009 at 18:32:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Diliff - uploaded by Dilif - nominated by --190.31.27.15 18:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)--190.31.27.15 18:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  CommentTwo things : first, the original version seems to have a better white balance. The current one looks blueish to me. Second, i find the bottom part of the picture somewhat too dim -- yet i understand that you had to get the whole hall in the same frame, from the brightest arches to the darkest nooks, and this is no HDR. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Ridiculously perfect as usual. -- JovanCormac 07:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Petra Jordan BW 43.JPG

Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2009 at 10:01:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created - uploaded - nominated -- Berthold Werner (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This crop is much better then the other one! --Leviathan (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Ceridwen (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Takabeg (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent foto. --Korman (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Royal Naval college-3.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2009 at 17:26:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: This images shows the Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth on the River Dart. There has been a training centre for naval officers here since the 1860's but this building was completed in 1905.
•  Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - nice picture --Pudelek (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Sorry, I don't like the composition and the detail could be much better. As a side note, the large size of the thumb fools the reviewer into thinking this is a panorama, which is not. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I apologise for any apparent "fooling" - it was certainly not my intention. Any larger crop would have brought in unnecessary detail. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great colors, very beautiful scenery, good EV and very good quality.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not detailed, blurry at the lower left corner and some of the trees, some blue artifacts at the houses in the front. A panorama would have been much better with higher res, more details, corrected levels and sharpness.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Couldn´t find a decision right now. I like the light + the colors and the composition would be alright with me, but there´s these brightly lit houses in front. Also, level of detail/resolution is low not amazing. Nikopol (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Not sure how far you zoomed it but I can count the sheep in the field to the right and the rear...:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Better formulation? I think Alvesgaspar was right, you are somehow disappointed when you discover it´s not a panorama. Any chance of taking one? And as I stated, I´m not decided yet. In general, for me technical issues are all in all less important than the overall feeling of a picture and I might well approve in the end Nikopol (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hey - one of the reasons for doing this is to get feedback and I appreciate it. I will definitely go for a panorama next time I am that way but it won't be for a while yet. As I said I had no intentions of misleading with this but I had to crop the foreground or I would not have supported it :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Neutral Composition & resolution. Because you have such great elevation, I think even the front houses would be better cut out. But of course then you would need a high-res panorama to get details on the College. Definitely potential at this location. --99of9 (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Actually, looking at it longer, I think the resolution is sufficient, so maybe a crop will be enough? --99of9 (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I can crop it (& will) if that is what folks want? The resolution shouldn't be an issue really. Not sure what is best - an "alt" one? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy to see (and I think support) an Alt, though I can't speak for anyone else. --99of9 (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  OpposeAn impresive building, but the houses in front distract too much. They are also partially cropped which doesn't help either. It might well be that it is not possible to take a FP which shows this building entirely without using a helicopter since I'm afraid that the composition will collapse if the bottom part is just cropped away from this image. A very valuable image with nice colors anyway. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Peine del viento de Eduardo Chillida.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2009 at 16:25:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: All Nikopol -- Nikopol (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• The windcombs of Eduardo Chillida are situated at the entrance to the bay of San Sebastian. There, they "comb" the wind before it enters the city.
•  Support -- Nikopol (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sadly, as it's a lovely composition. But there's a lot of noise, especially on the rocks, and the whole images is suffering from chromatic aberration and a purple tinge. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as above + subject too dark --Leafnode✉ 10:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Grand Prismatic Spring and Midway Geyser Basin from above.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2009 at 07:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Mila Zinkova - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Tiptoety -- Tiptoety ^talk 07:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiptoety ^talk 07:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• За - WOW! Strong support! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment this one which looks very similar is already featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Daniel's right, the nomination is here. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - duplicate of an already featured image.--Avala (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Avala. —kallerna™ 16:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because The nomination is useless as the same image, with a different name, is already a FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

•  Oppose per Avala. --Korman (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Low pressure system over Iceland.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 23:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by Brian0918 - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• За Nice and rare --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Strong support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Fantastic. -- JovanCormac 08:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice how far you can zoom in Nikopol (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Karl Emil Otto Fritsch-Denkmaeler Deutscher Renaissance-1891-Nuernberg-Pellerhaus zu Nuernberg Aegidienplatz 1605 Facade.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 20:43:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by unknown - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Mylius -- Mylius (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mylius (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Can this image be geocoded? Does the building still exist? If so, I don't think this warrants FP since the composition is not good (cutting the left building in half). If it no longer exists, the historic value brings it up a few notches, perhaps a cropped version would be featurable? --99of9 (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  Object location added. The building was severly damaged in WWII. Only the ground floor and parts of the courtyard remained. The renaissance facade shown here no longer exists. See de:Pellerhaus. Lupo 11:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Eilean Donan castle - 95mm.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 20:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eusebius (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support very beautiful. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment nice landscape, but blurred photo IMO --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive landscape, very nice. --Schnobby (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Peripitus (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose blur  Support now better :) --Leafnode✉ 11:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Great image but at full res it does lack some sharpness - fixable? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. Texture of the castle looks liquified, so only the edges could be improved --Leafnode✉ 12:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • A quick play would suggest otherwise :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, if so, go ahead :) --Leafnode✉ 12:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Sharpened version by Herby (thanks again). I think it is more interesting, although there is more CA on the mast on the left, and a bit more noise in the trees. --Eusebius (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Re-uploaded. Sharpening reduced, ca fixed? If not preferred the feel free to revert it :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I guess I ought to :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• За support now and thanks to Herby for improved version --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• За :) --Pudelek (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - You could be a really good paparazzi ;) Great view. Ceridwen (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support image could focus more on the castle but this foto is good enough. --Korman (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Petra Jordan BW 36.JPG

Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 15:23:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support "Only the penitent man will pass" -- JovanCormac 15:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Afaik this was Al Khazneh  ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Though the "inner" part with the two lions doesn't appear to exist at all in reality... -- JovanCormac 20:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Sorry, the crop is too tight IMO. —kallerna™ 16:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Kallerna. Nice picture apart from that. Nikopol (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose tight crop --Leafnode✉ 11:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tight crop. It's a long walk to get up there; the least you could do is show us some of the sky over the building. Daniel Case (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps if you crop it like this? Nikopol (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Even worse. --Leafnode✉ 11:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Avala (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Arquebus img 0410.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 15:13:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Firing of an arquebus during the Geneva Escalade of 2009. The lock has just ignited the power in the touch hole and the shot is about to go off, amidst the smoke caused by neighbouring arquebusers.
•  Oppose Weak composition and crop. -- JovanCormac 15:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition, crop, cloud covering most of the picture --Leafnode✉ 11:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not agreed about the smoke: it covers less than half of the photograph, and it is a part of the point.

I would be interested to hear more about the composition. If I had to formulate criticism myself, I would have said that the background is messy and distracting, but I might not use the term "composition" for this. Rama (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

By 'composition' I meant mostly background. About smoke - it would be fine if it didn't cover the shooter, as he is the main object of this photograph. --Leafnode✉ 12:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Blitze IMGP6376 wp.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 12:11:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by and uploaded by Smial - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment There's not too much I can say about this lovely piece that the picture itself doesn't already say for me. :P
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great lighting :). --99of9 (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nikopol (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Very good! --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Toll! --Simonizer (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  •  Confused: I wasn't aware there was a fee to nominate an image. When was that introduced? :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Info: "Toll" is a German word meaning "great", "fantastic", ... -- H005 15:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- I dream of being able to take pictures like this...excellent lightning picture with great coloring. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is no sorcery. You must be patient. Then patient. And a bit weather proof. Then again patient. And you need a tripod. And a cable release, and a camera, that supports full manual control. And everytime, when you close the shutter, you need to be patient again, as the dark frame substraction needs again 60 seconds (same as the real exposure time), before you can take the next shot. And I grant you: Exactly in these 60 seconds at minimum 10 much better flashes will happen. Then you need some chocolate to calm down. And never point the camera to a different direction. If you turn right, the next gigantic flash will come down to the left and vice versa :-) -- smial (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Of course. An amazing shot. Tiptoety ^talk 07:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• За - Excellent! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --AngMoKio (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Leafnode✉ 11:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Peripitus (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Love the contrast between the sharp, jagged lightning and the smooth, subtle clouds. Daniel Case (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great picture! --Leviathan (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support *g* --Böhringer (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Phellinus igniarius Oak 2009 G2.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 11:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: All by George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: False tinder fungus (Phellinus igniarius) on a dead Oak.
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, bad light (shades), no wow. —kallerna™ 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow for me, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose bad lighting and a kind of straight forward composition --AngMoKio (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose VI --Leafnode✉ 11:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Flag-map of the world.svg

Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 05:34:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Transparent 6lue - uploaded by Transparent 6lue - nominated by Transparent 6lue -- Transparent 6lue (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Transparent 6lue (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I am not so sure Greenland is correct. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This is a great idea, and beautifully executed. Correlations that I wasn't aware of until now can be seen at a glance, e.g. that most African countries have green as the predominant color in their flags. Greenland is formally a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, so it looks OK to me. True, they have their own flag, but so does Alaska which is also shown with the flag of the "parent state". -- JovanCormac 10:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that the Greenlandic flag shouln't replace the Danish, Alaska's relation to the United States is to my knowledge no different from that of any of the other 50 states - Greenland, however, is far more autonomous than any other area (possibly except for the Faeroes) under the Danish crown. --Aqwis (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have only shown the national flags here, regardless of how autonomous any of their subdivisions are. --Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment, I would suggest replacing the Norwegian flag on Svalbard with a uniform red colour. --Aqwis (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Although this would certainly make it look a lot better, keep in mind that it could be confused with the red of Denmark/Greenland/Faroe Islands. --Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The status of Svalbard is special - not really Norway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Still, Norway's surely the most accurate national flag that you could apply to it. Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment I would prefer the sea to be non-white, because it merges with some of the flags. Perhaps a very pale blue? --99of9 (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The black outlines should not make the ocean a problem. However, if anyone wants to change the ocean to very pale blue (or perhaps very pale grey), someone else will have to do it because the finished file makes my computer lag too much. --Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The black outlines aren't enough for my eyes. But I'm an idiot... the sea is transparent in the svg, so I can have whatever background I like - no need for a change.  Support --99of9 (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support - Clever idea and quality implementation. PS could you make the Finnish flag slightly smaller, the same size as the Swedish flag. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Finnish flag is bigger than the Swedish one because if you look up the proportions, the Finnish cross is much more thicker. The shapes of the countries are also a factor in how they turned out. --Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. After checking the sources, I have to shamely admit that I didn't know my and my neighbor's flags. :-) Thanks for the explanation. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Whatever the background colour, it's simply great. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Econt (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral I'm not convinced by this idea --Leafnode✉ 11:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - the map is inconsistent. It shows Alaska and Greenland the same way, it shows Kosovo but doesn't show Palestine, flag proportions are strictly kept for Finland and Greece but not for Japan and South Korea, no clear criteria over which island nations were included and why etc. So even though the idea is fine there is still a lot of work to do.--Avala (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by Alaska and Greenland being "the same way", but I'll answer the other points. I have updated the map to reflect a new criteria, which is the UN member countries plus the Republic of China. As for the proportions, I decided that the designs where the field was distinctly divided into several areas should be kept as close to the original as possible. On the other hand, I decided that the symbol-on-a-background designs could be resized if it would help recognisability. I have added all islands now. Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose I agree with Avala. What are the criterias about selected countries? --.dsm. 18:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The UN member countries plus the Republic of China. Transparent 6lue (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Western Sahara the UN member state? Why would you add the Republic of China which has less recognitions than Western Sahara and also why not add Palestine which has more reconigtions than any other state? It's obvious there is no criteria for this map.--Avala (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of the situation, I wasn't sure about how recognised certain places are. In any case, I have taken Takabeg's advice and now the map shows only the UN member states. Also, I'm still confused about your statement that "It shows Alaska and Greenland the same way", could you please clarify what this means and what you would recommend instead? Transparent 6lue (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comment - I recommend you chance as the map of Member States of the United Nations. Takabeg (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Aloe dichotoma -Keetmanshoop, Namibia-21Aug2009-2.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 02:46:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Le Grand Portage -modified and uploaded by Fletcher - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Technical perfection. -- JovanCormac 16:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Ok. —kallerna™ 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Peripitus (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Wow, impressive ! Ceridwen (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent foto. Nice colours too. --Korman (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hoodoos in the Bryce Canyon National Park.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 23:29:21 (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) 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great color changes. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great capture! When I was there, sadly the phenomenon was not to be witnessed. Looks really ghostly Nikopol (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 16:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful creatures of the nature. BTW, was there some additional artificial lighting used behind the rocks or is this all natural? Support anyway. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: I took this image without flash or other additional artificial lightning. This is a contre-jour shot. The hoodoos are illuminated by reflected sunlight coming from the hoodoos in front of them. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Beauty. Tiptoety ^talk 07:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose scenery is great, but image is terribly noisy and unsharp --Leafnode✉ 11:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Leafnode, what happened to you? You gaved today 26 oppose in the time 11:18 - 12:01. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't have time to vote progressively, so I voted en masse for all active FPC votes - that explains amount. And why so many opposes? Well... I just think those images were not good enough. I know my point of view might seem extreme, but recently I've decided not to hesitate to oppose if I see major flaws, even if the image is generally supported. --Leafnode✉ 08:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:A starry sky above Death Valley and Orionid.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 17:52:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: We have no single meteor featured I believe, so here it is: Multicolored w:meteor w:Orionid is exploding over Death Valley National Park
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It really is much too noisy, consider using lower ISO than 1600. I suppose you used a tripod, why didn´t you take ISO 100 and a long exposure time? Nikopol (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess, you've never taken a picture of a meteor.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn´t realise the meteor is the important thing, must have somehow skipped this part of the explanation. But IMO the capture of the meteor does not quite make up for that amount of noise. Nikopol (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nikopol, just check the date when this photograph was taken: 22 October 2007. As you can check out from this table, Mbz1 apparently planned this photograph carefully by journeying to the Death valley exactly when an Orionid shower was to be expected and where, given the extremely dry air and the absence of artificial light, you get fine conditions for photographing the night sky. Given the speed of the meteors, the selection of ISO 1600 (at an exposure time of 8s) sounds quite sensible to me. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

When I was taking the images I was mostly thinking about capturing as many meteors as possible even very faint ones because the images are used for recerch. I used fisheye in order to capture as much sky as possible. The lens aperture is 3.5. To capture faint meteors with such a lens and such an aperture I should have used ISO 1600. I did not care about noise. My bad, how I forgot about FPC That's OK I should have learned a long time ago never to nominate for FPC something that is special to me :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Nothing featurable here, either the quality or the rarity -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's right, what could be featurable in the only image of a meteor to be present in FP images :) If it is feutered, it will be so lonely :) --Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination should have kept it to myself :)

---

[edit] Edit 1

•  Support reduced noise and lost some stars in the process :(--Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination should have kept it to myself :)

---

[edit] File:Sergei Rachmaninoff LOC 33968 Cropped.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 16:21:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: Created by the Bain News Service (Original image is located here) - uploaded by Etincelles - nominated by Etincelles - Etincelles (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Cropped version of File:Sergei Rachmaninoff LOC 33968.jpg, digitaly restored to remove scratches and dust by Etincelles.

•  Support - Etincelles (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional  Oppose. Documentation is essential: please give detailed notes of specific edits performed and please include a link to the unrestored version directly from the nomination. Remember: curators look for good documentation practices when institutions decide whether to digitize. Don't cut corners! Durova (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment LoC does not create images, they just archive them; this is from the en:Bain News Service. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lotus in a garden in Suzhou.JPG

Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 10:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Schnobby (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- The composition looks like a snapshot. - Peripitus (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Natural composition works fine for me. --99of9 (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition, noisy, too centered, would be better as portrait. —kallerna™ 16:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Nice, natural colors. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Contrario I like the composition, but it's too noisy... --Phyrexian (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose poor lighting, trivial composition --Leafnode✉ 11:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nanjing Road, Shanghai.JPG

Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 10:00:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Schnobby (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too dark. —kallerna™ 10:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Nights are dark. Even in Shanghai. Schnobby (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per kallerna. The composition is fine, but you'd need HDR here. Wolf (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral I actually like this picture very much. However, it needs a gentle denoise and also a rotation/perspective correction to fix the skewed looking crop on the left. Do that and I will support. -- JovanCormac 16:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose dark, some bushes (?) in the center --Leafnode✉ 11:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• I withdraw my nomination Schnobby (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] File:Teheran US embassy propaganda grasp.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 01:56:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: all by Nikopol -- Nikopol (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• As we recently had some propaganda nominated: After the Iranian hostage crisis (1979-1981), the walls of the former US embassy were covered in today infamous anti-US(anti-israeli)-murals. In our guide, the authors wrote about having some problems after taking pictures of the embassy walls, although at other times that didn´t seem to be the case. While I didn´t want to spend much time there, afraid of getting my camera confiscated, I still managed to take some nice pics of the murals. (Here is a shot of the whole scene: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/2614920613_defbcf6237.jpg)
•  Support -- Nikopol (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Any chance of retouching to remove the graffiti? --99of9 (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I definitly could if everyone here insists, but i´d prefer not to since a) It could be the signature of the artist. Tagging this wall would be insane b) I want to keep it as authentic as possible. Retouching propaganda feels a little awkward... Nikopol (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion taggers are insane. If I'm right that this is just a tagger, then to be true to the original work it would be better to restore it (documented of course), but I understand your hesitation (hence my support either way). --99of9 (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional  Oppose. Documentation is essential: the unedited version is not available for comparison. Please upload it and cross-link from each version to the other. Please include a link to the other version directly from the nomination. Remember: curators look for good documentation practices when institutions decide whether to digitize. Don't cut corners! Durova (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Do these remarks refer to my image, or is it a mistake? Since you wrote the same to Etincelles? Nikopol (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not a cut/paste. Please note the differences; the two nominations had different but related problems. Durova (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Done. Here is the unedited version:
  

  

  unedited version
  Nikopol (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you.  Support. Durova (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete No COM:FOP in Iran as far as I know. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• That discussion should be undertaken in a deletion request IMO. Otherwise people's votes will be a mixture of two different issues. I think we should stick to a FP vote here. --99of9 (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Before uploading my images, I asked at the help desk whether I could, and noone could really tell me how the legal situation is, since there is little factual information available. However, despite my research, I found no evidence that there is no freeedom of panorama in Iran (there is rather a lack of entries regarding Iran). If you are looking for a practical indicator: take a look at the category Iran: If there actually was no freedom of panorama, one third of the photots of Iran we have at commons would be illegal. But regarning these files, noone suggested deletion. I don´t see why my picture should be treated differently. It certainly would be important to find answers considering the legal questions, but I think this is not the right forum to do so. Nikopol (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• If Iranian copyright law does not say anything about FOP exemptions, there is no freedom of panorama in Iran. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Since not only my picture, but a huge part of our stock of pictures from Iran would be concerned in this case, I advocate discussing the legal status of pictures from Iran in an appropriate forum. As we have such a huge amount of images which have not been marked for deletion, perhaps the legal situation is not that clear. I know close to nothing about iranian copyright law, but I oppose to my picture beeing treated differently for whatever reason. Nikopol (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there was already a response Nikopol (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: no problem with it being on the featured list, but I think we should generally not feature current propaganda images on the front page. - Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:The Hazards From Hazards Beach.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 15:24:07 (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) 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: This is the Hazards from a somewhat different angle. Most people see them from Coles Bay, or perhaps Wineglass Bay. Noodle snacks (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Question: why do you down-sample your landscapes so much? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • In most cases people assume that content found on Wikipedia (where it is usually found) is free as in beer. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, it might be the case, but the thing is that in a year or so the size requirement will probably be changed to let's say 3 megapixels and then all your wonderfull landscape will be delested :( If I am not mistaking, it happened to few images by fir0002 on English Wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, it doesn't bother me though. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good composition. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose picture is nice, but nothing outstanding --Leafnode✉ 11:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Portert van twee jonge Balinese danseressen TMnr 10004678b.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 21:51:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Portert van twee jonge Balinese danseressen TMnr 10004678.jpg.-- Durova (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Balinese dancers, 1929.
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great work and great picture. Nikopol (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Super. Takabeg (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support GerardM (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Interesting picture but that's all. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Enthusiastic support One of your best restorations! -- JovanCormac 10:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore The pic was beautiful, but the restoration is awesome! --Phyrexian (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - What a wonderful restoration. Tiptoety ^talk 07:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support A wonderful old foto. --Korman (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Suvanto 2009-10-02 02.JPG, featured

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 19:54:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by MattiPaavola - uploaded by MattiPaavola - nominated by MattiPaavola -- MattiPaavola (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Suvanto is one of the very few villages in Lapland, Finland that wasn't destroyed during WWII.
•  Support -- MattiPaavola (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This composition would make a great painting too :). --99of9 (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Hyvää ! Takabeg (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Lovely image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Could be more detailed and crisp but I love minimal compositions -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I love it. --Eusebius (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lotus in Suzhou.JPG

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 13:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Schnobby (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak  Support. Lovely resolution, distracting background. Durova (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy, unsharp, distracting background. —kallerna™ 10:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree to the distracting background. Perhaps you like the new photo more? Schnobby (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Background, sorry. --99of9 (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Crop, background -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - per Alvesgaspar --MattiPaavola (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Contrario I don't care about the background, but too noisy... --Phyrexian (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose crop, background --Leafnode✉ 11:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Yu Garden in Shanghai.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 13:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Schnobby (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment the idea of showing modern and old culture is really good but there are some technical problems. The foreground is too dark while the background is too bright. Unfortunately you need some kind of HDR technique to make such a pic. --AngMoKio (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, poor quality. —kallerna™ 10:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Multiple issues. --99of9 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutrale I love it, but poor quality... --Phyrexian (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose messy composition, poor colors --Leafnode✉ 11:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The picture is OK but the composition is distracting with many objects in the foreground. --Korman (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sossusvlei.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 13:32:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The Tsauchab river ends in the desert. -- Ikiwaner (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• За - Wow! Rare place for me --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - The composition and tones are very good. --MattiPaavola (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. Durova (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wonderful location. --99of9 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Noodle snacks (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Consider changing your licence. —kallerna™ 10:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• За--Avala (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This is how red deserts should look. Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore Wonderful --Phyrexian (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Leafnode✉ 11:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gaillardia fanfare centered.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 13:02:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment It's a simple composition, but the photo is all the better for it. Sometimes, simple just works.
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful (although I find the lighter spots/objects on the left and above the flower a bit distracting). Nevertheless great. Nikopol (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very Sharp, really great.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per Diaa abdelmoneim. Durova (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Canyonlands National Park, Utah.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 12:52:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Jim Gordon - uploaded by TWO - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment After this picture was delisted, I decided to hunt around and see if I could find a replacement.
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Petrified wood! Looks great in situ. Durova (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 10:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nikopol (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wonderful image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unrealistic oversaturation. --99of9 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Even if the colours are natural and don't find the composition, the quality or the theme special enough for FP - Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support 99of9 is right on the saturation front, but at the same time I think it is a well executed shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore Oversaturation :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Fort Lachaux-1 (by).jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 10:44:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, artificial colors, plus composition and scene are not outstanding in my opinion Nikopol (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -tones, CA --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition, colors, CA --Leafnode✉ 11:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Fort Lachaux (by).jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 10:42:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, artificial colors and image quality issues Nikopol (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Artificial colors and the whole thing looks a bit blurry or grainy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -Overexposed or oversaturated, CA --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Even if colors weren't wrong, there's just no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose colors, CA, composition --Leafnode✉ 11:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Fort de Roppe (15) (by).JPG

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 10:40:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Excellent. PS A short English description would be appreciated. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Dew droplets on a died insect. --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • That explains! :-) Thanks. I have now added this description to the image page. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Pour Well done photo. Nice! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sharpness, composition, depth of field. Very good capture. Durova (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting enought. —kallerna™ 10:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Böhringer (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose <-- Only until you fix the horribly posterized background. Subject is nice. --99of9 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Little is clear in the picture -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore Oh, wow! --Phyrexian (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Fort du Bois d-Oye (by) (10).jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2009 at 10:38:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow for me, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore I love the composition --Phyrexian (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose flatness, lighting --Leafnode✉ 11:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:El Golfo-Lanzarote.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 22:45:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by garrondo - uploaded by garrondo - nominated by garrondo -- Garrondo (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Garrondo (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Beautiful place, but overexposed sky. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I would like to support, as it is really beautiful photo, but it's too noisy and the sky is bit overexposed. —kallerna™ 10:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose overexposed sky, lighting could be better --Leafnode✉ 11:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kingswear and the Dart s1.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 17:32:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: This images shows the village of Kingswear which lies opposite the town of Dartmouth across the river Dart. The lowest bridging point on the Dart is some way upstream and without the ferries (on is shown in the image) between Dartmouth and Kingswear there would be a journey of at least thirty minutes to get from one side to the other. Both places have considerable historic interest going back over 1000 years. Both also have castles which were used to defend the river (one can be seen and there is a pointer to the location of the other one). The Pilgrim Fathers put in to Dartmouth before setting sail in 1620. This is a stitched image made up from three individual images.
•  Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment, the image is badly tilted; a ~1.33 deg counter-clockwise rotation is necessary to fix this. --Aqwis (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hopefully fixed (rotated by 1.33 deg). I'll put the notes back on as soon as I can. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support An amazing scenery with a high EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent work. Even the locations of the four boats add to the balance of the composition. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, although the image notes seem slightly (substantially?) misplaced? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • They are ok to me? Is it all of them? More info would be good, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • All of them at least with Firefox 3.5.5. -MattiPaavola (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Weird - I am using FF 3.5.5. When I placed them they looked a little odd but show in the right place for me. I think I'll delete them and try again but I'm just going out now so it will be later. And follow up - cache issue maybe. I cleared it and sure enough the notes were very badly placed :(. Anyway - hopefully fixed now. Thanks for the feedback --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Yep, all in order now. Thanks for taking care of that. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Takabeg (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very good. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent image of English coast. Daniel Case (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore Very beautiful --Phyrexian (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cedar Breaks National Monument partially.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 16:29:09 (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) 16:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 10:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose unsharp --Leafnode✉ 11:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Leafnode, what happened to you? You gaved today 26 oppose in the time 11:18 - 12:01.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Osiris E3751 mp3h8829-e.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 16:13:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Statuette of Osiris sitting, Louvre museum, circa 664 - 332 BCE. Bronze with gold incrustations, 17 cm high, access number E3751. Rama (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Replaced the originally nominated File:Osiris E3751 mp3h8829-c.jpg with the slightly tighted crop File:Osiris E3751 mp3h8829-d.jpg. Rama (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Excellent DOF. Excellent lighting. But, I would prefer a slightly different crop regarding the snake on the hat - maybe to cut it away. --MattiPaavola (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

like this ? Rama (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

with snake

without snake

 Support Yes, like that! Having DOF reaching only the eyes just rocks in this case IMO. --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Info: Replaced again File:Osiris E3751 mp3h8829-d.jpg with the slightly tighted crop File:Osiris E3751 mp3h8829-e.jpg. What would I do without MattiPaavola? Rama (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support You need a better way of showing alternatives - all three thumbnails are showing the same image. Anyway, this has a great mood and a lot of visual impact, well done. --99of9 (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, a filename was wrong. Corrected, thank you. Rama (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Rama, I recommend that you give a support vote for your nomination. That way it'll have a better chance of being promoted. -- Petritap (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sleepy Bay Sunrise.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 12:06:34 (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) 12:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: I think that this place was aptly named - given a bleary eyed 4am start. It is one of the best sunrises that I have seen. I am lucky that I chose to go there that morning, the next one had no colour at all. The previous day I went diving here. It is beautiful under the water too. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Gorgeous place with a lovely mood at this time of morning. --99of9 (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The early bird catches the worm. --MattiPaavola (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very beautiful! Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• За nice colours --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Expressionism ROOOOLZ! Would make a great desktop, too. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rozeta Paryż notre-dame chalger.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 11:03:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Albertus teolog - uploaded by Chalger - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Excellent photo, but I think the fine details of this difficult subject would require higher resolution for a FP status. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If the rose has a diameter of 13 meters is the term "detail" is very relative. Albertus teolog (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I would argue that seeing the big picture is rather rewarding. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Good - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Maybe it´s not a problem of resolution, but heavy processing? Do you think there would be more detail left if you processed it a bit less strong? Nikopol (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I see no details. —kallerna™ 10:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Great composition, but I agree with kallerna. --NEURO ^⇌ 22:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wonderful geometry, but I'm with Matti. --99of9 (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Machliny Małe panorama 2009-05.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 10:38:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created and uploaded by JDavid - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Nice place! Any chance of fixing the CA on the tree trunk on the left? --99of9 (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Very beautiful. A little hesitant because of the high JPEG compression and CA. --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just a panorama, nothing special. —kallerna™ 10:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kata-Tjuta.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2009 at 03:50:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Kata Tjuta means "many heads" in the Aboriginal language of the region, and the huge domes were of importance in their creation myths. This layer of composite rock is the same layer that forms Uluru, approximately 50km away. --99of9 (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support as nom -- 99of9 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. Interesting landforms, well composed here. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition - to present landforms I'd expect wider perspective. --Leafnode✉ 11:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for your review. The idea is to feel amongst them. This way you see detail of the near one as well as macro-form. --99of9 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose As above - composition. Karelj

[edit] File:After the war a medal and maybe a job2.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2009 at 23:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by John Sloan - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored version of File:After the war a medal and maybe a job.jpg -- Durova (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Antiwar political cartoon, 1914. Durova (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- No more war. Takabeg (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• За Excellent restored result. Excellent picture --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support That´s life. --Karel (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support More excellent work by Durova. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Isfahan Lotfollah mosque ceiling.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2009 at 23:40:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created and uploaded by Phillip Maiwald (Nikopol) - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: The darker parts towards the edges are not caused by vignetting, but by the bulge of the dome. Nikopol (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for the nomination! Nikopol (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] edit 1

• I just uploaded a slightly rotated and cropped version that is more symmetric.

 Support Nikopol (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Excellent --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wonderful. --99of9 (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support amazing. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support incredible. --AM (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wonderful job! --.dsm. 15:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Spitze! --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore Thank you, and thank to their god for inspiring such beauty --Phyrexian (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Leafnode✉ 11:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support - Nice picture. Ceridwen (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Coulées Basaltiques at Jaujac 3.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2009 at 14:59:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: The Massif Central in France is a volcanic region with interesting features in many areas. The whole area is roughly a quarter of the area of France. This image is from the Ardèche department and is not as well known as some areas. Basalt columns such as these are a remarkable feature of volcanic activity. Jaujac has one of the youngest extinct volcanos in Europe and the "coupe de Jaujac" is quite well known though all the articles I've found are in French.
•  Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support A great image of the amazing example of Nature at work! Very interesting, thank you for the additional information.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose lighting, sharpness could be better --Leafnode✉ 11:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Romanian Patriarchal Cathedral - external mosaics.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2009 at 14:41:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Basik07 (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose shadows --Leafnode✉ 11:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Because of the shadows... The mosaics are permanently placed there. A better photo can be taken. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Utricularia calycifida - front.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2009 at 01:23:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Petr Dlouhý - uploaded by Petr Dlouhý - nominated by Petr Dlouhý -- Petr Dlouhý (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Flower of carnivorous Utricularia calycifida (en) from front.
• Info: Size of the flower is about 0.5cm (macro)
•  Support -- Petr Dlouhý (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Hot pixels on the background. Distracting flare on the bottom right corner. Could be sharper. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Flare and hot pixels can be edited, but did you take into account size of the flower, when talking about sharpness?
•  Oppose Noisy. —kallerna™ 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose both versions. The shoots behind the flower are out of focus. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] edit

•  Neutral Thanks for removing the hot pixels. I would still prefer deeper DOF (which in this difficult tiny case might need special macro equipment, unfortunately). Therefore, neutral. --MattiPaavola (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  You could use focus stacking without any special equipment (well except a fixed camera position). /Daniel78 (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  I know, but I didn't learn it yet (but I am planning it). I didn't notice, that use of stacking is standard for FP macros (in fact I didn't see any such image, when quickly paging trhough FP). Anyway, thanks for your comments, I will try to do my macros better.--212.24.152.56 06:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Clonfert Cathedral Mermaid 2009 09 17.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2009 at 22:37:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by AFBorchert -- AFBorchert (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- AFBorchert (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It is one of those rare images that are not only of a great quality, but also have a fascinating story to tell. When I first saw the image on QI I was rather surprised that a mermaid (half-naked female :) ) was carved at the chancel arch of the Cathedral. So I asked about the story behind the image, and here is the story. More information could be found in the blog.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support A lovely image and of good value to the project, thanks for offering it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Correct photo but no more than that -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The image is of a very rare carving with an amazing story behind it. The image is of a great quality and a great EV. That's why may I please ask you to clarify your oppose reason? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose harsh light --Leafnode✉ 11:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lizard in Ibiza.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2009 at 12:26:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Schnobby (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Needs a denoise (or maybe those are JPEG artifacts - <1 MB for 4 Mpix is a little low). -- JovanCormac 15:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Seal Rock from Cliff House.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2009 at 04:36:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Rocks, rocks, rocks... Would you finally take some photos of airplanes or helicopters or... anything more mobile than rocks? :) Wolf (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - OK, but I still remove the photographer from the shot . It is not difficult in this case.- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I prefer this one (yes I know, it's not from the same place), and IMO this bring nothing new to the genre. —kallerna™ 15:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The one you mentioned is not only from the same place, but it shows absolutely different rocks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Neutral I don´t know... I love the lit rocks and the blurred water in the foreground. Also, the sky is great. But above the center of the image, the water lies in the shadows (of a rock out of view?). It´s somehow deranging me, as if the image was cut in two there. Nikopol (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like the colors and for this reason I would prefer this one in comparison to the alternative below. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, very good. --Aqwis (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice capture of the waves. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The building is tilted. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Contrario As MattiPaavola --Phyrexian (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose tilt, composition --Leafnode✉ 11:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Civil War steeplechase2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2009 at 06:13:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Edwin Forbes - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Civil War steeplechase.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Steeplechase race in celebration of Saint Patrick's Day among the Irish Brigade of the Army of the Potomac during the American Civil War, 17 March 1863.
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment This time I don't think you've chopped enough off! Could you remove the right border, since none of the other borders are showing? --99of9 (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Forgot to hit save before the second upload. Should be fixed now. If the thumbnail hasn't updated, just click in. :) Durova (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support OK. OK. OK. Takabeg (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Steeplechase2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2009 at 01:13:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by US Army Signal Corps - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Steeplechase.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: US Army training exercises at Camp Edwards, Massachusetts, circa 1942.
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yay, war propaganda! Wolf (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This is a great one. -- JovanCormac 09:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Successful capture of the motion. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support "Where have you been, soldier?" "Training, sir!" "What kind of training?" "AAAAAAaaaaAAAArmy training, sir!". Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  Feaured comment! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore I don't like the subject, but rare and very good shot... --Phyrexian (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Johannes Honterus - Denkmal in Kronstadt.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 21:05:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Quality image, nice statue, but - sorry - not extraordinary IMO. --MattiPaavola (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dirt road in winter.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 19:27:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: everything by Juliancolton (talk · contributions). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Quite a lot of chromatic aberration. Could you reduce it? —kallerna™ 12:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support original ... it just looks more realistic than the edit to me. —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This version is fine with me too.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition isn't IMO that good. —kallerna™ 15:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Could you please explain what's wrong with the composition? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Photo just isn't extraordinary IMO. You could have tried some other perspective and it's too centered. For instance, this one is from same kind of place, but the composition is more striking IMO. —kallerna™ 15:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Though I like the other one this is good too. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• За nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Having lived through this same weekend storm, in the same region as nominator, I like the mood in this one better. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I thought a long time about it, but in the end I have to agree with Kallerna. I believe that the atmosphere was great, but I think it would have to be a bit more extraordinary for a FP. Sorry. Nikopol (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what more one would want. This is probably the best shot I could have gotten of this scene in its natural state, without trying to achieve some all-too-common artificial composition that reduces the image's educational value. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that I would have been very hard to come up with a better composition for that place. But I´m not shure whether every scene existing, though perhaps atmospheric in real life and of educational value, can be captured in a photo worth beeing elected FP. IMO this is a well-made photo of "a rural dirt road after a bout of snowfall", but lacking a bit on the “wow factor” a FP should have. Nikopol (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, that's fair then. Thanks for participating. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Just a way. --Karel (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry? I don't understand, could you please clarify? (Sorry if this comes across as badgering, I'm just interested in improving for future shots. :)) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Nice, but not enough wow for me. (P.S. I think the previous voter could be translated as "Just a road".) --99of9 (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good photo, but there needs to be an exceptionally good composition to generate wow on an everyday subject. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose nothing particularly outstanding --Leafnode✉ 11:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] edit 1

•  Support Great atmosphere!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support edit. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• За very nice for me --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. —kallerna™ 15:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose – per kallerna. --Ernie (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice, but not enough wow for me. --99of9 (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per my comment above --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as with original --Leafnode✉ 11:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sheikh-Lotf-Allah mosque wall and ceiling 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 17:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Nikopol - uploaded by Nikopol - nominated by Nikopol -- Nikopol (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nikopol (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: The image is a panorama out of two images which I had to take without a tripod, thus I had to correct the result of the photomerge a little. -- Nikopol (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ianaré (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think it needs a little rotation to make it symmetric. --99of9 (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice photo as is --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I love islamic calligraphy, but overall quality just doesn't amaze me here. The image is blurry throughout at full res and there is some CA visible around the windows as well. -- JovanCormac 09:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Info: Please note: This is a very large dome. I had to dicide on what spot to focus. If you look at the tilework a bit above the center of the image, you will see it´s perfectly sharp. Given the circumstances, I was very pleased with the level of detail my Pentax k10d produced on the overall image. -- Nikopol (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great work. Thanks... --.dsm. 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Lovely image and certainly featurable to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Dazzling detail where you would want it. A net plus. Would make a great desktop. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Devil's Golf Course in Death Valley NP.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 16:32:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: The Devil's Golf Course is a large salt pan in Death Valley National Park, with a rough surface formed of large salt crystals. It was named after a line in a 1934 w:National Park Service guide book to Death Valley, which stated that "only the devil could play golf" on its surface.
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. Oppose alternative. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• За -George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing extra, good image, but not for FP. --Karel (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, nothing extra just some salt crystals surrounded by multicolored volcanic hills in natural environment :) --Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Ausgezeichnetes Bild! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Unusual and striking scene, well executed. --99of9 (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose unsharp, unpleasant curve of salt field's border --Leafnode✉ 12:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] alternative

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• За support too --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support IMO better --Leafnode✉ 12:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Alberi e crocefisso a Dobbiaco.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 14:12:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I only just noticed, but this is reminiscent of the symmetry and desaturation of Golgotha. Also, nice colours on the tree. --99of9 (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore Non mi piace troppo la composizione, ma i colori sono fantastici :-) I don't like so much the compsition, but I love the colours of this pic :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. If the crucifix is the subject, it is not well exposed. --Leafnode✉ 11:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment The crucifix is only a part of the picture. The subject of this image is the composition of crucifix plus the trees (with beautiful red coulors) immerse in the white novel snow.--Llorenzi (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mongolian Lama.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 09:24:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Schnobby (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support A little unsharp at full size, also a little noisy, but I really like it. --Moise Nicu (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral – The colors are a bit off. --Ernie (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment No problem. I'll reduce the colors. Schnobby (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support great portrait! --Leafnode✉ 11:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lula e operários.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2009 at 17:47:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Ricardo Stuckert/PR - uploaded by Richard Melo da Silva - nominated by Richard Melo da Silva -- RmSilva ^{pode falar!} 17:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- RmSilva ^{pode falar!} 17:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It is an interesting image. It does have some problems like dust spots, some noise, and the composition is not complete IMO, yet tthe image is interesting, and unusual enough to be considered.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The quality is not very good (noise and CA), the composition does not feel very good either with both the "towers" cut off and part of the bottom banner. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Daniel78 + burnt. —kallerna™ 10:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Lacks that "wow" factor, plus it feels like an advertisement. Tiptoety ^talk 02:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Composition, perspective and CA/oversharpening. --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ALTERNATIVE 1

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Resolution is too low.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

[edit] Delisting candidates

[edit] Timetable (day 5 after nomination)

Sun 13 Dec → Fri 18 Dec
Mon 14 Dec → Sat 19 Dec
Tue 15 Dec → Sun 20 Dec
Wed 16 Dec → Mon 21 Dec
Thu 17 Dec → Tue 22 Dec
Fri 18 Dec → Wed 23 Dec

[edit] Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)

Wed 09 Dec → Fri 18 Dec
Thu 10 Dec → Sat 19 Dec
Fri 11 Dec → Sun 20 Dec
Sat 12 Dec → Mon 21 Dec
Sun 13 Dec → Tue 22 Dec
Mon 14 Dec → Wed 23 Dec
Tue 15 Dec → Thu 24 Dec
Wed 16 Dec → Fri 25 Dec
Thu 17 Dec → Sat 26 Dec
Fri 18 Dec → Sun 27 Dec

[edit] Closing a featured picture promotion request

[edit] The bot

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exist a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

[edit] Manual procedure

Any experienced user may close requests.

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
'''Result:''' x support, x oppose, x neutral => /not/ featured. ~~~~
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Osmia rufa couple (aka).jpg)
2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
   featured or not featured
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
   becomes
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
3. Save your edit.
4. If it is featured:
   • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
   • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
   • Add the template {{Featured picture}} or {{Assessments|com=1}} to the image description page.
     • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|com=1|subpage=Bar.jpg}}
     • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add com=1 to the Assessements template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|com=1}}
   • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
     • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
     • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
   • Add the template {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
   {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
   Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2009), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

[edit] Closing a delisting request

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
   '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
   (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
   delisted or not delisted
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2009.
4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
   1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
   2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change com=1 to com=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes)
   3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.