Commons:Featured picture candidates
|
This project page in other languages:
Alemannisch | Asturianu | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Lëtzebuergesch | Молдовеняскэ | Norsk (bokmål) | Português | Polski | Română | Русский | Shqip | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | Українська | 粵語 | 中文(简体) | 中文(繁體) | +/− |
|
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. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|
[edit] Formal things[edit] Nominating[edit] Guidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
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:
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.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Set nominations If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.
[edit] Adding a new nominationIf 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, 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:
[edit] VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. You may use following templates:
You may 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. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Anonymous votes are not allowed. [edit] Featured picture delisting candidatesOver 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}} 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, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. [edit] Featured picture candidate policy[edit] General rules
[edit] Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
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 politePlease 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
|
|
[edit] Table of contents
[edit] Featured picture candidates
[edit] File:Central Park path.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 23:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by Paolo Costa (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Tropidacris collaris MHNT vol.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 22:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Citron (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Great detail, huge EV. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support ■ MMXX talk 00:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Parmeliopsis ambigua - lichen - grünliche Schneepegel-Flechte.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 20:09:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Norbert Nagel - uploaded by Norbert Nagel - nominated by Norbert Nagel -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutral as nominator. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)But of course, this is nonsense. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose because not taken with a Hasselblad H4D-60 camera. The resolution is to small for me. Is this OK for you? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Very nice. Tomer T (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Lotus 4.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 20:05:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Gil Abrantes (flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I like the image, but what is that bumpy (?) thing on the top right (see annotations)? Is that a part of the road or some kind of image distortion? Tomer T (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Araña Mandaio 07-0-2006 10.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 17:51:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lmbuga-- Miguel Bugallo 13:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)It's not a perfect portrait (taken in 2006 with a Nikon 8800), but perhaps wov. I want to know what you think-- Miguel Bugallo 13:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak support
-
Neutral--Miguel Bugallo 19:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Waldermarsudde Panorama February 2012.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 18:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- ArildV (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Yann (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Colostygia aqueata Buchstein01.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 14:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by User:kulac - uploaded by User:kulac - nominated by User:kulac -- Kulac (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose bad background--David საქართველო 16:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)- I´m not familiar with the procedures here, so i´m probably wrong and the picture still has a bad background, but may i refere you to en:Crypsis? --Kulac (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure about the quality, but "bad background" is really a poor argument. This is called camouflage. Yann (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support quality is good imo, and the photo is a good illustration of crypsis. Tomer T (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Oia Santorini Blue Domes.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 14:31:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Danbu14 - uploaded by Danbu14 - nominated by Danbu14 -- Danbu14 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Danbu14 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose a bit CA, tilted, seems too bright, not a fortunate crop on the left. Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Bad composition: a lot of empty sky and white foreground. Yann (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Keisarinnankivi (Helsinki) - 2.JPG
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 12:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I think it's not sharp enough + could be brightened. Tomer T (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Common Jezebel Delias eucharis by kadavoor.JPG
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 09:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Jkadavoor - uploaded by Jkadavoor - nominated by Jkadavoor -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I believe it's too noisy to be featured. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 11:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Maurilbert. And crop is really tight. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aceros cassidix - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 2011-02.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 01:56:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Fiorellino - uploaded by Fiorellino - nominated by Fiorellino -- Fiorellino (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Fiorellino (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose too tight crop, not sharp enough. Tomer T (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Tomer T --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Winterporling Polyporus brumalis.jpg
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 21:09:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Citron (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I like it--Miguel Bugallo 22:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support WOW factor due to the ice crust. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Yann (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Ricinus communis - Fruits.jpg
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 17:53:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Moonik (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Moonik (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak oppose I find the composition too busy. Tomer T (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose the main: the fruits are too unsharp. The DOF is too low. The distracting background kills the composition. If we see only the sky in the background and the plant slightly tilted, then I give my full support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Yes the fruits are not sharp enough. But I like the composition. Vegetal elements are a bit distracting maybe, but the building surely not (IMO).--Jebulon (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Royal Coat of Arms of Greece.svg
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 16:58:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Sodacan - uploaded by Sodacan - nominated by Katarighe -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support The author is one of the best heraldists in "Commons", and this work is particularly good (and "heraldicaly" correct, obviously). Very nice and difficult SVG coat of arms IMO. + Very pleasant to be seen in detail.--Jebulon (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Jebulon -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Yann (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Jebulon is right --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 16:51:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Sodacan - uploaded by Sodacan - nominated by Katarighe -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as used by current monarch Queen Elizabeth II from 1952 to the present (as used in all her realms except Scotland).
Support -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Very nice and interesting. A short visit to User:Sodacan's galleries is a real pleasure.--Jebulon (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Jebulon -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Yann (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:ST vs LOU - 21.jpg
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 13:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created & uploaded by PierreSelim - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice --Katarighe (Talk) 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice! ■ MMXX talk 22:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support thank you for the nomination --PierreSelim (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support great. I like it :)--David საქართველო 16:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice action shot. Maybe a bit oversatured, but not sure. FP.--Jebulon (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support As Jebulon, and a little bit of noise, but very nice and good action shot--Miguel Bugallo 20:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Yann (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I've tried this kind of shots myself. Not easy stuff. Anyways, the moment offers a big wow in this pic. --Paolo Costa (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport.jpg
Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 20:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Christopher Neugebauer on Flickr - uploaded and nominated by Cloudbound -- Cloudbound (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Cloudbound (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Too dark, but this can be corrected. I made a try: File:Qantas A380 lands at Melbourne Airport edit.jpg. Yann (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Overall, I like the atmosphere the colors create. But I too think it might bee too dark. I think a more mild brightening would be better, for exmaple File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport-edit2.jpg. Tomer T (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Early-morning light is one of my favorite shooting situations, so I think the general atmosphere of the image is fine. Darker blue colors high in the sky transitioning to reddish toward the horizon is consistent with what I'd expect from the timing of the shoot, and indeed I think it makes the aircraft stand out well against the sky. However, 1/1000 is an awful short exposure time for this kind of lighting, so I agree that it's probably way darker than it appeared in person. I like what you did with the second edit... I'd definitely support that file. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Overall, I like the atmosphere the colors create. But I too think it might bee too dark. I think a more mild brightening would be better, for exmaple File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport-edit2.jpg. Tomer T (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I guess the world is a small place. The photographer is an acquaintance of mine. He has a username here with a couple of uploads (User:Noogz). JJ Harrison (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Noogz (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC) (By the way, if consensus is that it needs to be brightened, I'd be more than happy to do this from the original RAW)
Oppose This image has nothing exceptional. Perhaps QI but not FP. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I maybe wrong but, looking at other airplane pictures, I think this one is not among the best. There is very strong vignetting and underexposure I'd say. --Paolo Costa (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Mandarin Oranges (Citrus Reticulata).jpg
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 04:04:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jovianeye
Support -- Jovian Eye storm 04:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)--99of9 (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose for now. The colours look oversaturated to me, especially in the red shadows under the leaves (and the leaf-green looks a little overdone too). I would support a different version of this picture if it is reprocessed.
Comment I have reprocessed the image from RAW with standard picture control. The earlier version used vivid. --Jovian Eye storm 12:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutral Wouldn't mind it being featured. But I think, as 99of9 that saturation should be lowered a bit. Won't support also because I don't like the leaves being under the mandarins, it looks kind of too "forced". --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Changing the picture processing has reduced the saturation a bit. As for the leaves, I never forced them down, its the way they were packed and kept at the store. :) --Jovian Eye storm 13:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Sevilla 01.jpg
Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 21:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created and uploaded by Meho29, nominated by -- 80.230.5.252 21:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)-- 80.230.5.252 21:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support
Oppose tilted, no specific point of interest Gnangarra 02:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Busy composition, unneccessary black and white reduces the educational value. --99of9 (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Card puncher - NARA - 513295.jpg
Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 08:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by US Department of Commerce, restored and nominated by Yann (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Info Woman operating a card puncher. Image from the US National Archives and Records Administration.
Support -- Yann (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Is it possible to remove the white line around the head?--Sasha Krotov (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 05:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Now this is an example of a nice old image. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)S
Support--Miguel Bugallo 22:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support/Sasha Krotov (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Econt (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew(1939)a.jpg
Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 00:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by unknown Polish photographer - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Miniapolis -- Miniapolis (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Miniapolis (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the pink color. It should be converted to shade of gray. See File:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew 1939.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 05:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I think it's worth Wikipedia featuring, but not Commons. The image is extremely blurry, noisy and shows poor detail. It also has this pink tint. I know it's a very old shot but then, should every historic picture be featured? I don't think so, that's why we have a valued images section. This is not among commons best historic material by far imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Paolo Costa --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Yann and Paolo Costa. it has good EV but the quality is not that great. ■ MMXX talk 23:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG
Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 22:18:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created and uploaded by Poco a poco, improved versions by NorbertNagel and Aleks G and nominated by Poco a poco -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak oppose-The window through which it is taken is not centered--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Ggia (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Miguel Bugallo 19:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Colchicum automnale.jpg
Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 20:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by User:Cquoi - uploaded by User:Cquoi - nominated by User:Cquoi -- Cquoi 20:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- User:Cquoi (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose unsharp details, I would like to see more of the stamens. Tomer T (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment bad file name imo... One could be confused and doubt if it is the name of the plant or the animal. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I see nothing sharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Unsharp --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg
Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 19:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Brian Gratwicke - uploaded by me (through File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)) - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Info A very good shot of a critically endangered species of a frog. Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Cute frog, harmonious composition, nice colours, excellent picture. / Achird (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Sasha Krotov (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose harsh flashlight and the resulting strong shadows ruins this pic imo. --mathias K 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just want to note that this species is critically endangered. To my understanding of reading its profile in the IUCN red list website, the species is very rare and there are very few individuals left, and that's what makes the picture so valuable in my eyes. I'm not sure you can say the image is reproducible, so I think quality issues are secondary in this case, or at least less important than usual. Your opinion is your opinion, but I just wanted to share my point of view for a productive discussion. Tomer T (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support The flash light is a minus. Definitely. Should have used some other illumination system (there are many for frog photography, like a macro ring led flash light). But detail is good, the composition is awesome, and it is an endangered species. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
weak support nice frog. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:DoemitzerBruecke2.jpg
Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 18:30:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Fice - uploaded by Fice - nominated by Anonymous
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Prominent shadow on the foreground + not that much wow imo + poor crop on the sides + a bit of horizontal perspective correction needed I think. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Olympic and Titanic.jpg
Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 15:55:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Robert John Welch (1859-1936), official photographer for Harland & Wolff - uploaded by User:Centpacrr - nominated by User:TrebleSeven -- TrebleSeven (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support as nominator -- Outstanding image, brilliant quality for 1912, and is one of the only images of the Olympic and the Titanic together after nearly colliding. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Too small and blown out sky. Yann (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Quality is not that great, needs more restoration, version uploaded by Centpacrr seems to be better somehow. ■ MMXX talk 01:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Done TrebleSeven (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Alt
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info correction of colours, contrast and enlargement by User:TrebleSeven.
Support -- TrebleSeven (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, clouds disappeared, the corners are all very blurry.--Sasha Krotov (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Very noisy, there are still problems. See annotations. Yann (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Kaveri river.jpg
Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 15:11:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose No wow and poor license. Yann (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose at about 1pm: the sky is simply too dark for me. The license is however full OK for wikipedia. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per above --Katarighe (Talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose too dark + the crop on the right seems too tight. Tomer T (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:El Tres de Mayo, by Francisco de Goya, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg
Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 09:17:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Google Art Project, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Yann (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Info The Third of May 1808, by Francisco de Goya. A very high resolution of a famous painting, by the Google Art Project. It is acknowledged as one of the first paintings of the modern era. According to the art historian Kenneth Clark, this is "the first great picture which can be called revolutionary in every sense of the word, in style, in subject, and in intention" (Wikipedia).
Support -- Yann (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Nice image, but can you crop that black line on the left? TrebleSeven (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Request -- Can you crop that black line on the left? TrebleSeven (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Please notice that the "black line" (in fact, a shadow) is part of the framing. It is necessary for an encyclopedic purpose: it proofs that the picture shows the whole painting, whithout any crop.--Jebulon (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment@Jebulon Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This proves nothing. Given the picture frame of the painting is not displayed, even this decision was an initial crop to the composition. Without the picture frame any statement on the actual image borders is mere guesswork. In case you've seen the image in reality things might be different because you know how it looks. Yet this is not the case for most viewers. Cropping an area that contains no information is admissible in this case. Indeed a version featuring the frame would be nice for its encyclopaedic value, given the frame itself has fallen into the public domain and the creator of this image would provide it with a free licence. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Machecoul - Abbaye Notre-Dame-de-la-Chaume (1).jpg
Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 21:04:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Selbymay (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Selbymay (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I like it. Tomer T (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Isn't it a bit soft ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
SupportGood -- Raghith 08:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Nice, good composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Isn't it a bit yellow ?--Jebulon (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose unsharp (out of focus) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Carschten. I am suprised this made it through QI. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose nice, but I see too many unsharp areas at the main object. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose unnatural colours, not really sharp. --Berthold Werner (talk)
Oppose Colors not ok. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)- {
Support - color of the clouds and sky is perfectly plausible and natural, so I don't doubt the rest of the image is very similar in color to the actual scene at the time –Juliancolton | Talk 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Niveoscincus metallicus - Austin's Ferry.jpg
Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 21:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by p0lyzoarium -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
SupportGood -- Raghith 08:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice and sharp on the eye and most of the body. Pleasant composition. --99of9 (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Very nice and sleek. Peaceful image. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The whole tail is out of focus, which is not that bad. But the crop so near the end of the tail ruins it imo. A more balanced composition would require the same amount of space as the one left on the left side, from the head to the edge. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - when I first looked, I thought it was very aesthetically pleasing. Then I thought of several reasons why it shouldn't be... but it is. I don't get it. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Corvus tasmanicus - Collinsvale.jpg
Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 21:02:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by p0lyzoarium -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose insufficient use of the camera's native resolution. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 04:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- "Ghostbusters" the next round :-( I my opinion it is simply unfair!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- (it's a crop) JJ Harrison (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- So just because the camera could have taken a higher resolution photo you oppose it? A picture is a picture, regardless of the camera that took at, am I wrong? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Deliberately using lower resolution than technicaly possibly is utterly unnecessary. And yes, I do oppose those who limit resolution by downsampling or disproportional cropping - independent of the image. This limits the possibilities of re-use outside the Wikiworld. One of the major aspects to a featured picture is the way people can re-use it. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- "This limits the possibilities of re-use outside the Wikiworld." Yes, that's exactly the reason why we require a minimum resultion of 2 MPx. Everything above would fit that requirement. The cameras original resolution is absolutely irrelevant at this point. Arguing against the FPC is
- unfair, because this argument targets the equipment, not the image itself.
- stupid, because for this argument you need knowledge of the used eqipment supported only by EXIF data which can easily be changed or deleted.
- "Deliberately using lower resolution than technicaly possibly is utterly unnecessary". This is just a statement from you. In fact you don't have any clue, if the author cropped it to improve the composition or downsampled it without any strong reason. Alleging the last is again unfair and stupid. --LC-de (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- "This limits the possibilities of re-use outside the Wikiworld." Yes, that's exactly the reason why we require a minimum resultion of 2 MPx. Everything above would fit that requirement. The cameras original resolution is absolutely irrelevant at this point. Arguing against the FPC is
- Deliberately using lower resolution than technicaly possibly is utterly unnecessary. And yes, I do oppose those who limit resolution by downsampling or disproportional cropping - independent of the image. This limits the possibilities of re-use outside the Wikiworld. One of the major aspects to a featured picture is the way people can re-use it. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- So just because the camera could have taken a higher resolution photo you oppose it? A picture is a picture, regardless of the camera that took at, am I wrong? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- What a petty reason for opposing this image. It's this kind of rule-craziness that discourages people from submitting images here. --69.225.14.10 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Oppose -- per Peter Weis. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong support a very good and valuable image. We needn't larger images for Wikipedia too!!! It is exact and perfect for the full resolution of my monitor (2560*1440 pixel). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Alchemist, I simply don't care about your WQHD display setup. One of our projects targets is the re-use of images outside the wiki world and the internet. To assure the possibility of re-use in print for example, high resolution is mandatory. Since we don't know how people like to re-use images, providing the highest resolution we can is a service to them. Given a situation in which people can rely on the quality of this project, more and more re-users will be convinced by our cause and the usefulness of free licences. Again: limiting the possibility of re-use is counterproductive to this process. Other users apply nutty licence combinations to decrease the chances of commercial re-use or any other way of re-use they oppose to. Yet this is allowed so far, and therefore no valid reason to oppose. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, now we have a new rule: the "Peter Weis Rule": if the image isn't uploaded in full camera resolution then it is permissible to oppose it. --> absolutely NONSENS! "In the future I eliminate simple my EXIF Data or I manipulate it to a low resolution camera, perhaps to a 3MP Kodak DC 4800, my first photo tool." --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think equity is important, and we should apply the same standards to all nominations, regardless of camera type. We assess the qualities of an image, not the performance of the creator. Ideally, the creator's name should be hidden as long the image is under assessment, to assure fairness. --ELEKHHT 12:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Alchemist: Despite being a timeconsuming endeavour, this would be rather useless. Since I know that you are working with a Canon 5D Mark II (SN: 530306722), and comparing the differences in terms of image quality should be possible on eye sight, feel free to do as you like. You are trying to decrease the credibility of my statement by presuming that my opposition is based on a rule, which you referred to as the "Peter Weis Rule" - why, thank you for this subtle move. The only thing that is nonsens (sic!), is your made up citation and rule. For clarification: I do oppose in this case, because the native resolution of the Canon 7D (5,184 x 3,456 pixels) was cropped disproportional. More than 50% of the image were cropped. I am fully aware that it might have been necessary to keep this distance to avoid scaring off the crow and that 700mm is already at the upper end of what most people carry around. To me a true featured picture would have been able to provide a larger resolution without cropping at large. There is no guideline that prohibits opposition to featured picture candidates. Despite the supports to this decreased resolution, you won't be able to convince me - a compromise is futile.
- @Elekhh: I would have opposed anyone else who's cropping away that much of his native resolution - independent of the camera. The performance of the creator is what determines the quality of an image. Unregarded our desire to prevent this from being part of the decision-making process, we do considerate the performance of the creator as well. The story behind the images is critical to our evaluation, because it determines our view to the picture. Imagine a panaroma that was taken shortly before the photographer got killed by a landslide. It's just not possible to remain unbiased during this process if knowing about this. The idea is to produce arguments that are considered being objective or technical and blind out those arguments which affect us as well. In this case we don't know much about the circumstances under which the image was taken. And yes, of course my critique is directed at JJ Harisson as creator of this image and his extensive cropping. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are almost alone with your (for me) unfair opinion. Our minium requirement are 2MP for an FP image. It don't must be the fuill resolution of the camera. We can be lucky to have this image. It is much better then nothing! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong support Per Alchemist. / Achird (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Alchemist. --Cayambe (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Intriguing "crime scene", good quality. --ELEKHHT 00:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Yes, I demand to have this at billboard HD size resolution. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Alchemist. --LC-de (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice timing, deliciously done! Royalbroil 02:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- cropped image so what many FP are cropped, it a common adjustment during the FP process Gnangarra 02:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support 2000px is fully sufficient. --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Alchemist --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Enjoy your meal! --Schnobby (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutral Very nice image, but I also agree with the argument of Peter Weis. I think we should increase the minimum image size for QI and FI. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- YES, minimum 60MP and only using of a Hasselblad H4D-60 or a better camera. We have NOW the rule of minimum 2MP, not a fantasy resolution of more. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. I can start to vote for your images with contra.
Comment You are right, minimum 2MP is the present rule and this is why I didn't vote against this image. Please note, that I just didn't support the promotion to FI. I don't understand why you become so emotional and announce to vote against my images. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Beautiful autumn day.jpg
Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 16:08:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Photos public domain - uploaded by Dipankan001 - nominated by Dipankan001 -- Dipankan001 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose unsharp and oversaturated. Take a look to the sky: you see chromatic noise. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- Over-saturated. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Glass of red wine.jpg
Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 15:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Photos Public Domain - uploaded by Dipankan001 - nominated by Dipankan001 -- Dipankan001 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose tilted and dictracting background. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Too much noise, not sharp and what is the encyclopaedic value? --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose--P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- Not so sharp, the background is a little bit distracting, per others. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Metropolitan opera 1937.jpg
Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 10:32:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by U.S. Information Agency - uploaded by Darwinek and AndreasPraefcke - nominated by Fanoftheworld -- Fanoftheworld (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Fanoftheworld (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- I like it, brilliant composition, good quality for a B/W image. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Needs more/better restoration, see image notes, just marked some of them. also image has artifacts, unlike the original TIFF, it is grainy,. ■ MMXX talk 01:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per MMXX --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per MMXX. But will be happy to change my vote to support if corrections are made, this is a beautiful, impressive and valuable image. It just needs a little boost to be a FP. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Metropolitan Opera House, a concert by pianist Josef Hofmann - NARA 541890 - Edit.jpg, Alt version
Neutral Here is a new version, adjusted the brightness/contrast locally and globally, also removed most of the spots and scratches. ■ MMXX talk 00:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Force India 2.jpg
Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 01:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Gil Abrantes (flickr), uploaded and nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment considering that the photo was taken from far away and the car is moving at high speed picture turned out good --Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --David საქართველო 06:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose the composition and cut isn't OK for me: to much unatractive foreground, lo less car, not enough place in front of the car. And the main: the car ist unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. / Achird (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutral -- I agree, if only the background was a little bit different. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. --ELEKHHT 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. --Pitlane02 talk 13:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - must agree with Alchemist-hp. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Khost children in 2010.jpg
Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 11:34:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Staff Sgt. Andrew Smith (U.S armed forces), nominated by 122.169.50.222
Support --Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- I like the composition. —Bruce1eetalk 06:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support very nice image--David საქართველო 06:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Bruce1ee. Tomer T (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice propaganda from the US military, but well... Yann (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
OpposePer Yann, except the "but well...". Parent's consents ? Personal rights warning ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid many of these children have no parents--Sasha Krotov (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Yann and Jebulon. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Jebulon. / Achird (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support very nice aesthetically, has EV.. of course.. US miliatary propaganda... Personal rights warning etc.. should not be arguments for a FPC IMO.. may-be for a deletion request... but not here. Ggia (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support our troops. USA! USA! USA! - But seriously, this is one of the best shots in Category:Children of Afghanistan so far. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 04:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
SupportGood -- Raghith 08:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment When I nominated this picture I was acutely aware that this was USM work. But despite that this work humanizes and highlights the Afghans. Secondly its hard to say 'kill all Muslims', 'bomb,bomb!' while looking at this picture.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.141.235 (talk • contribs)
Support -- Wonderful picture. Really, it's a brilliant shot. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- about you comment, Commons:Featured_picture_candidates General rules: Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome.--Sasha Krotov (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I don't mind who took the photo. It's a featured picture IMO. --Dr.Haus (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Composition is excellent. Royalbroil 02:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose License at source restricts commercial use Images uploaded to Flickr are for the free intended use for dissemination by media outlets and all other interested persons or organizations for newsworthy or educational media products. They are not, however, and in accordance to Flickr policy, to be used with the intention of reproducing and selling the images without prior consent of the releasing authority, or by extension, the photographer whose name should be included in the description. Please credit "Photo by ISAF Public Affairs" unless otherwise noted. The releasing authority is the Public Affairs Officer for ISAF Headquarters or any persons designated by the Public Affairs Officer, any of whom can be contacted at pressoffice@hq.isaf.nato.int. [1] Gnangarra 09:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Created by U.S. Army Photographer (not another NATO Army Photographer) which means this photo is public domain. Sasha Krotov (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- not according to the source used, please link to a US military source for this image as there is nothing on the source page that identifies the photographer[2]. Gnangarra 11:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- see Exif2 Info[3], it consist all information about author. Sasha Krotov (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- not according to the source used, please link to a US military source for this image as there is nothing on the source page that identifies the photographer[2]. Gnangarra 11:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Created by U.S. Army Photographer (not another NATO Army Photographer) which means this photo is public domain. Sasha Krotov (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Jebulon --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Eilean Donan Castle Panorama..jpg
Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 06:09:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by, uploaded by, nominated by -- Ritchyblack (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Ritchyblack (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Very nice view and panorama. The only thing I am not totally happy with is the colour or saturation in the sky, but that's a minor problem. / Achird (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Super. -- -donald- (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support very nice, though two people are on the bridge centre section in the reflection on the water.... Gnangarra 11:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Very good of you observed, and I have retouched badly! --Ritchyblack (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment very nice, I would support a better crop (the tree on the right is cut). PierreSelim (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Aleks G (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Per Pierre-Selim. Two cm less at left, and two cm more at right...
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't understand why the two people were erased in the first place. Thierry Caro (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Because I like the photo without people prefer. I had been waiting a very long time that the two go on. But now came the next travel group already on the bridge. I'm standing with the feet in the water and the flood was rising. These are only temporary objects that I have removed --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I like this photo--David საქართველო 06:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
SupportNice.-- Raghith 10:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Great picture!!! --Meho29 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Nice, very nice, very high quality and very pleasant to the eye. Did you use Photoshop for this?
-
Question -- Did you use Photoshop? TrebleSeven (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Info The metadata indicates that Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows was used. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Great! -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Very nice! ■ MMXX talk 00:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Beautiful! Royalbroil 03:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support good nice image --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Automeris caterpillar.jpg
Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 17:54:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Geoff Gallice - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Beautiful. --Aleks G (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose dark details of caterpillar and branch eliminated by the black background. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice. --Karelj (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Bold image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Carschten. Bad black colored background work. Otherwise nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp, oppose only due to the "bad" black background.--Jebulon (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose dark image--David საქართველო 06:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
SupportGood -- Raghith 08:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- The background isn't good enough. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support The background is OK: better than white or green one. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose As kaʁstn--Miguel Bugallo 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Russia. Moscow Region. Winter pine wood, lake Kratovskoe area.JPG
{Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 21:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G -- Aleks G (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Impo, this is not sufficent for a featurable picture (nothing special, just trees). --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per above--David საქართველო 20:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support the image is really technically good, its interesting it shows the detail it let the viewer experience what snow looks like. Gnangarra 01:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Better viewed as an artwork rather than a picture of trees. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Gnangarra. --Cayambe (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I like it. Tomer T (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per other supporters.--Jebulon (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 05:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice atmosphere! -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support — Raghith 10:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- These are superb trees, really nice composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support ■ MMXX talk 00:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Paolo Costa (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Miguel Bugallo 22:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per JJ –Juliancolton | Talk 05:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:20081206 Alexandros Grigoropoulos december 2008 riots Sina Street Athens Greece.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 12:46:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created & uploaded by Ggia - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support This B&W picture appears timeless ; the grain and stark contrast from the film, along with the make of the car (a Jeep...), had me wonder wether it was truly from 2008. It also has an eerie feeling, as if the burned down and turned over body of the car was floating above the ground. Truly worth being featured, according to me. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Conrado (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC). Impressive, a tribute.
Support !!! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Request @Ggia: maybe you could add some infos about your used camera and the settings of the image? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak supportAt full size it's very noisy and I get the feeling the jeep could be more focused. Anyways, I am not opposing since I am aware of the difficulty of all the conditions and It still is a wonderful pic, with a huge wow (the light just above the car is perfect).--Paolo Costa (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Dr.Haus (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer finds another nuggest of gold. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Info I am really impressed that you like this image since it is an image from film, having some grain - and noise-grainy images are usually rejected for being FPC ;-). According to my negative notes it is shot by FM2 Nikon, Kodak Tri-X 400ASA (Shot at 400ASA), D76 developer 1 (stock) + 1 (water), 11 minutes @ 20Celsius. Shoting during the night (without flash) and with 400ASA film you need to have open diafragm and the depth of field is quite limited (you can see it at the image). I uploaded this image on December 2011 remembering the December 2008 riots without thinking that this can be a FPC. Ggia (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Paolo Costa Cathy Richards (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Aleks G (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support--Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support — Raghith 10:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Good, very vintage. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Very good. Nice to see someone shooting in the only true raw format.
--ArildV (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /FPCBot (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Hallstaviks kyrka January 2011d.jpg
Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 19:42:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by ArildV -- ArildV (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- ArildV (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Wow! / Achird (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose No wow at all. It is simply a well executed picture of a church. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose As Saffron Blaze. --Karelj (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Architecture is under-appreciated on FP in my opinion. This has serene mood all around, with a good combination of lighting and snow-dusting. Technically, it is sharp, with correct perspective, and minimal noise. The composition is great, with high EV, no distracting elements, and the eye is led right into the door. --99of9 (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Nothing wrong with it, nice composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose dull colors and visible CA. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Ice cream van, Helsinki (Helsingfors).JPG
Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 12:42:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- Simply an image of an ice-cream van, nothing special. It's not even sharp enough. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per TrebleSeven. Tomer T (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose bad cut, simple and boring centered composition. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Crocus tommasinianus LC0031.jpg
Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 09:42:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Tommasini's crocus (Crocus tommasinianus); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support good enough for me. Use of DOF, composition, sharpness. Direct sunlight might be a minus in some cases, yet here I think it is a plus. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Gratulon pro la momento! Conrado (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Beautiful pic. Identified sp., has EV, nice atmosphere, good composition. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose It's just not clicking with me. I find the ground and background distracting. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose As Gambliel, nothing special. --Karelj (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The composition is too cluttered, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- Bit blurry at the back, per Cayambe. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose blurred flower in the foreground spoils the composition Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose uniteresting composition, bad light. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Šmarjetna gora 04.jpg
Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 08:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Meho29 - uploaded by Meho29 - nominated by Meho29 -- Mihael Grmek (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment What is the subject/what would the educational value be? --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Lošmi (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Very pleasant, nice place to go to forget your troubles. Brilliant pic. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per TrebleSeven Cathy Richards (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose chromatic aberration --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Carschten. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Carschten. --Miguel Bugallo 22:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Carschten and no Wow --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Delisting candidates
[edit] File:Jerusalem Dominus flevit BW 1.JPG
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 13:51:34
Info Reason to delist (Original nomination)
Now File:Jerusalem Dominus flevit BW 2010-09-20 07-01-11.jpg is featured. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Delist Tomer T (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Delist --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Delist per nom. --Jovian Eye storm 13:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Delist per nom. --Cayambe (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Delist per nom.--Jebulon (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Námafjall in summer 2009 (2).jpg
Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 18:27:26
![]()
Info Reason to delist: The smoke is quite ugly and blurry for the image and it's not even that sharp. Not impressive. (Original nomination)
Delist as nominator -- TrebleSeven (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep I think the image is great + stability (the image was just made FP). Tomer T (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Good image --Katarighe (Talk) 20:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Yann (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Tomer T Cathy Richards (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Tomer T --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Mtbromo.jpg
Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 11:25:15
![]()
Info Unsharp, chromatic aberration (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep it is an image from 2002! Ant the main: it is a bit chromatic noise, not CA. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Since it was a one-off event, it cannot be retaken. So, like historic images, if it was featured according to the technical criteria of the time, I think it should stay featured. If the volcano was not erupting, I would have voted to delist. --99of9 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep --Katarighe (Talk) 00:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:Yosemite meadows 2004-09-04.jpg
Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 11:19:56
![]()
Info Unsharp, colors (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Delist This no longer represents our best work. It is very nicely composed. But the issues Tomer T mentioned are real, and the resolution does not meet our current low standards. In principle a similar scene could be retaken now. --99of9 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Delist per nom --Citron (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Delist --Katarighe (Talk) 23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:RomaCastelSantAngelo.jpg
Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 11:17:00
![]()
Info per nominator in the previous delist vote (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Delist bad quality, crop, colours... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Delist --Katarighe (Talk) 20:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Delist Cathy Richards (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Delist --99of9 (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Fri 10 Feb → Wed 15 Feb Sat 11 Feb → Thu 16 Feb Sun 12 Feb → Fri 17 Feb Mon 13 Feb → Sat 18 Feb Tue 14 Feb → Sun 19 Feb Wed 15 Feb → Mon 20 Feb
[edit] Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Mon 06 Feb → Wed 15 Feb Tue 07 Feb → Thu 16 Feb Wed 08 Feb → Fri 17 Feb Thu 09 Feb → Sat 18 Feb Fri 10 Feb → Sun 19 Feb Sat 11 Feb → Mon 20 Feb Sun 12 Feb → Tue 21 Feb Mon 13 Feb → Wed 22 Feb Tue 14 Feb → Thu 23 Feb Wed 15 Feb → Fri 24 Feb
[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 exists 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.
- 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)(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Osmia rufa couple (aka).jpg)
'''Result:''' x support, x oppose, x neutral => (not) featured. ~~~~ - 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 === - Save your edit.
- 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.
- 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/February 2012), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
[edit] Closing a delisting request
- 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) - 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 === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2012.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- 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)
- 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.