Commons:Featured picture candidates

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. 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.

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

Formal things Nominating 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 (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 × 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. A 1920 × 1080 image, commonly known as Full HD, has 2.07 Mpx, just more 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 the 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, provided 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 {{Retouched picture}} 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. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison. 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. Set nominations If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set. All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary. If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value. If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own. All images should be of high technical quality. 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, 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}} Voting Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. You may use following templates: {{Support}} ( Support), {{Oppose}} ( Oppose), {{Neutral}} ( Neutral), {{Comment}} ( Comment), {{Info}} ( Info), {{Question}} ( Question), {{Request}} ( Request). 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: No reason "I don't like it" and other empty assessments "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Anonymous votes are not allowed. 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, 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. 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. Featured picture candidate policy 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 Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. 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 following template: {{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. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum. Featuring and delisting rules A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions: Appropriate license (of course) At least 7 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. 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. 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

Table of contents

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page cache

Featured picture candidates

File:Central Park path.jpg

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

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

•  Info all by Paolo Costa (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Tropidacris collaris MHNT vol.jpg

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

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

•  Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Citron (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Great detail, huge EV. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support  ■ MMXX  ^talk 00:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Lotus 4.jpg

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

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

1619

9

488

99

2112

1408

What is that?

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

File:Araña Mandaio 07-0-2006 10.jpg

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

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

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

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

File:Waldermarsudde Panorama February 2012.jpg

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

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

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- ArildV (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Image:Colostygia aqueata Buchstein01.jpg

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

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

•  Info created by User:kulac - uploaded by User:kulac - nominated by User:kulac -- Kulac (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose bad background--David საქართველო 16:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• I´m not familiar with the procedures here, so i´m probably wrong and the picture still has a bad background, but may i refere you to en:Crypsis? --Kulac (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• I am not sure about the quality, but "bad background" is really a poor argument. This is called camouflage. Yann (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support quality is good imo, and the photo is a good illustration of crypsis. Tomer T (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Oia Santorini Blue Domes.jpg

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

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

•  Info created by Danbu14 - uploaded by Danbu14 - nominated by Danbu14 -- Danbu14 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Danbu14 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose a bit CA, tilted, seems too bright, not a fortunate crop on the left. Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bad composition: a lot of empty sky and white foreground. Yann (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Keisarinnankivi (Helsinki) - 2.JPG

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

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

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

File:Common Jezebel Delias eucharis by kadavoor.JPG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Winterporling Polyporus brumalis.jpg

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

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

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

File:Ricinus communis - Fruits.jpg

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

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

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

File:Royal Coat of Arms of Greece.svg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•  Support -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice and interesting. A short visit to User:Sodacan's galleries is a real pleasure.--Jebulon (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support per Jebulon -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:ST vs LOU - 21.jpg

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

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

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

File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport.jpg

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

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

•  Info created by Christopher Neugebauer on Flickr - uploaded and nominated by Cloudbound -- Cloudbound (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cloudbound (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)

File:Mandarin Oranges (Citrus Reticulata).jpg

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

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

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

File:Sevilla 01.jpg

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

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

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

File:Card puncher - NARA - 513295.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG

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

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

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

File:Colchicum automnale.jpg

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

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

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

File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg

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

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

•  Info created by Brian Gratwicke - uploaded by me (through File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)) - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Info A very good shot of a critically endangered species of a frog. Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Cute frog, harmonious composition, nice colours, excellent picture. / Achird (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--H. Krisp (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--Sasha Krotov (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose harsh flashlight and the resulting strong shadows ruins this pic imo. --mathias K 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I just want to note that this species is critically endangered. To my understanding of reading its profile in the IUCN red list website, the species is very rare and there are very few individuals left, and that's what makes the picture so valuable in my eyes. I'm not sure you can say the image is reproducible, so I think quality issues are secondary in this case, or at least less important than usual. Your opinion is your opinion, but I just wanted to share my point of view for a productive discussion. Tomer T (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
•  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)

File:DoemitzerBruecke2.jpg

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

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

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

File:Olympic and Titanic.jpg

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

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

56

720

133

133

1600

1206

scratch

1544

1138

52

64

1600

1206

...

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

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

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

Alt

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

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

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

File:Kaveri river.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Niveoscincus metallicus - Austin's Ferry.jpg

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

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

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

File:Corvus tasmanicus - Collinsvale.jpg

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

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

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

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

  •  Comment You are right, minimum 2MP is the present rule and this is why I didn't vote against this image. Please note, that I just didn't support the promotion to FI. I don't understand why you become so emotional and announce to vote against my images. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Beautiful autumn day.jpg

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

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

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

File:Glass of red wine.jpg

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

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

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

File:Metropolitan opera 1937.jpg

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

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

2558

6

315

426

2879

1750

Scratch (?)

41

123

280

385

2879

1750

Some spots here

1067

187

181

117

2879

1750

Scratch

938

257

186

111

2879

1750

Scratch

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

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

•  Neutral Here is a new version, adjusted the brightness/contrast locally and globally, also removed most of the spots and scratches.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 00:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

File:Khost children in 2010.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•  Oppose per Jebulon --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Eilean Donan Castle Panorama..jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Automeris caterpillar.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

969

190

936

1107

1964

3000

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

419

950

236

301

1964

3000

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

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

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

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

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

File:Hallstaviks kyrka January 2011d.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Featured picture candidates/File:Crocus tommasinianus LC0031.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crocus tommasinianus LC0031.jpg

•  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)

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.

Featured picture candidates/File:Šmarjetna gora 04.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Šmarjetna gora 04.jpg

•  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)

Delisting candidates

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Closing a featured picture promotion request

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.

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/February 2012), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

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/February 2012.
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.