Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Featured picture candidates in other languages: Alemannisch | Asturianu | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Galego | 日本語 | Lëtzebuergesch | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Português | Polski | Română | Русский | Shqip | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | Українська | 粵語 | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | 古文 / 文言文 | +/-

Shortcut: COM:FPC

Skip to current candidates Skip to current delist candidates

These are the candidates to become featured pictures. Please note that this is not the same thing as the picture of the day.

[edit] Formal things

[edit] Nominating

[edit] Guidelines for nominators

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:

• Resolution - Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 x 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level.

Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible.

• Scans - While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on preparation of various types of images that may be useful.

• Focus - every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.

• 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).

• 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 a photographic image is generally acceptable provide it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. Typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{RetouchedPicture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.

• 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.

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

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

• Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The “Rule of Thirds” is a good guideline for composition and is an inheritance from the painting school. The idea is to divide the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines, thus dividing the image into thirds horizontally and vertically. Centering the subject is 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.

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

• Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or 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, etc.

• Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.

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

• 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.

• Symbolic meaning or relevance…. Opinion wars can begin here…. A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.

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

You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating.

[edit] Adding a new nomination

If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following.

Step 1: copy the image name into this box (including the Image: prefix), after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image: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/Image:YOUR-IMAGE-FILENAME.JPG}}

[edit] Voting

You can use following templates:

• {{Support}} ( Support),
• {{Oppose}} ( Oppose),
• {{Neutral}} ( Neutral),
• {{Comment}} ( Comment),
• {{Info}} ( Info:),
• {{Question}} ( Question: ).

You can indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP.

Please include a few words about why you liked/didn't like the picture, especially when you vote oppose. Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Anonymous votes are not allowed.

[edit] Featured picture delisting candidates

Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote {{Keep}} Keep (it deserves to be a featured picture) or {{Delist}} Delist (it doesn't deserve to be a featured picture).

If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box (including the Image: prefix), after the text already present in the box:

In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:

• Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader);
• A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page);
• Your reasons for nominating the image and your username.

After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal.

[edit] Featured picture candidate policy

[edit] General rules

1. 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.
2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
4. Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
6. Nominators can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by simply writing "I withdraw my nomination"
   or by adding the text {{withdraw|~~~~}}.
7. 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.
8. Pictures are taken from the list if they have no support (not counting the nominator's) on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5). ("The rule of the 5th day")
9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 48 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.

[edit] Featuring and delisting rules

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

1. Appropriate license (of course)
2. At least 5 supporting votes
3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority)
4. 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.

Any experienced user may close requests. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished.

[edit] Above all, Be polite

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

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

[edit] See also

• To edit the list of nominations go to: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list
• For a chronological list, see Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological
• For an archive of previous nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log
• For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished
• Basic list of photography-related terms
• Quality image candidates
• Photography critiques
• Help:Scanning

[edit] Table of contents

Contents 1 Formal things 1.1 Nominating 1.1.1 Guidelines for nominators 1.1.2 Adding a new nomination 1.2 Voting 1.3 Featured picture delisting candidates 1.4 Featured picture candidate policy 1.4.1 General rules 1.4.2 Featuring and delisting rules 1.5 Above all, Be polite 1.6 See also 2 Table of contents 3 Featured Picture Candidates 3.1 Image:Simple CV Joint animated.gif 3.2 Image:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg 3.3 Image:Globe panorama03.jpg 3.4 Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy Arp 148 (2008-04-24).jpg 3.5 Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy UGC 9618 (2008-04-24).jpg 3.6 Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy Arp 256 (2008-04-24).jpg 3.7 Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6670 (2008-04-24).jpg 3.8 Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6240 (2008-04-24).jpg 3.9 Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy ESO 593-8 (2008-04-24).jpg 3.10 Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 454 (2008-04-24).jpg 3.11 Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy UGC 8335 (2008-04-24).jpg 3.12 Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6786 (2008-04-24).jpg 3.13 Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 17 (2008-04-24).jpg 3.14 Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy ESO 77-14 (2008-04-24).jpg 3.15 Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6050 (2008-04-24).jpg 3.16 Image:Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Flowers Closeup 2800px.jpg 3.17 Image:Ass.jpg 3.17.1 NSFW 3.18 Image:Cymbidium Clarisse Austin 'Best Pink' Flowers 2000px.JPG 3.19 Image:Podarcis sicula.jpg 3.20 Image:Galopprennen Guedingen.jpg 3.21 Image:Bud syringa vulg.jpg 3.22 Girgentana-Ziegen 3.22.1 Original (left) 3.22.2 Edit 1 (right) 3.23 Image:Church of Šėta001.jpg 3.24 Image:SanFrancisco from TwinPeaks dusk MC.jpg 3.25 Image:Great grey slugs (Limax maximus) mating closeup 1.jpg 3.26 Image:Papilio bianor Raupe LC0134.jpg 3.27 Romalea guttata 3.28 Image:RyuichiSakamotoJI4.jpg 3.29 Japanese Squirrel edited version 3.30 Image:Wasp May 2008-1.jpg 3.31 Image:Male Mallard Headshot.jpg 3.32 Image:Mallard 080508.jpg 3.33 Libellula quadrimaculata 3.JPG 3.33.1 Noise reduced version 3.34 Image:Kanton Zürich Detail DE.png 3.35 Image:Monarch Viceroy Mimicry Comparison.jpg 3.36 Image:Lily-flowered Tulip Tulipa 'West Point' Flowers 2000px.JPG 3.37 Image:Red-necked wallaby442.jpg 3.38 Image:Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Wings 1918px.JPG 3.39 Image:GreatEgret Alligator.jpg 3.40 Image:Triumph Tulip Tulipa 'Prinses Irene' Single 2859px.jpg 3.41 Mrs. Herbert Stevens (Hybrid Tea) 3.41.1 Original (left) 3.41.2 Alternative1 (center) 3.41.3 Alternative2 (right) 3.42 Image:Cox Ford Bridge, IN 1.jpg 3.43 Image:Schloss Nymphenburg Munich.jpg 3.43.1 Edit 1 (centre) 3.43.2 Edit 2 (right) - not featured 3.43.3 Edit 3 (alternative) - not featured 3.44 Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca 2 amk.jpg 3.45 Image:Thraciae-veteris-typvs.jpg 3.46 Image:JewliaEisenberg August2007.jpg 3.47 Image:Spider and mites May 2008-1.jpg 3.48 Image: LA_Skyline_Mountains.jpg 3.48.1 Original 3.48.2 Alternative (right) 3.49 Image: Assomption de la Vierge.jpg 3.50 Image:Riviere Langevin Trou Noir P1440224-35.jpg 3.51 Image:Dsm pano.jpg 3.52 Libellula quadrimaculata 3.53 Image:Bath-Abbey02.jpg 3.54 Image:Mandoe.JPG 3.55 Pelargonium graveolens 3.56 Image:Forestry Forwarder Ösa 250 2.jpg 3.57 Image:Forestry Forwarder Ösa 250 2.jpg 3.58 Image:Victoria Crater taken by Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.jpg 3.59 Image:Galaxies Gone Wild!.jpg 3.60 Image:Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin Mosque 02.jpg 3.61 Image:76.Pollineta a Agullana.JPG 3.62 Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca amk.jpg 3.62.1 Original (left) 3.62.2 Edit (right) 3.63 Image:Konica Minolta alvesgaspar.jpg 3.64 Original (left) - not featured 3.64.1 Alternative (right) 3.65 Image:Lynx der lander.jpg 3.66 Image:HP Pavilion (angle).jpg 3.67 Image:Garden of Eden ArchesNP MC.jpg - featured 3.68 Image:Coat of arms of Mexico.svg - featured 4 Delisting candidates 5 Timetable (day 5 after nomination) 6 Timetable (day 9 after nomination)

[edit] Featured Picture Candidates

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page cache

[edit] Image:Simple CV Joint animated.gif

• Info: Animation of a Simple Constant Velocity Joint, created and uploaded by Pwld, nominated by --norro 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Let's see how this animation pleases your eyes. --norro 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Goes round and round and round... Its hypnotic. Is it really a "picture" tho, being an animation. I know we had animated gifs that got featured status before. Maybe this process should be called "Featured media candidates". Just a thought. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 16:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support 16,000 × 16,000 image of Helix Nebula. (286MB TIFF version) -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Globe panorama03.jpg

• Info: created by Gadl on Flickr - uploaded by Abdominator - nominated by Gusme -- Gusme 12:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Gusme 12:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose There are much better shots that use stereographic projections. I recommend nominating one that is of higher quality. Freedom to share 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy Arp 148 (2008-04-24).jpg

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose, unsharp and too small. No strong mitigating reasons; not even close to the quality of our existing astronomy FPs. --Aqwis 12:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too small. (please read guidelines

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may remove this template and replace with a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If no contrary views are expressed within 48 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy UGC 9618 (2008-04-24).jpg

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose, noisy and unsharp. Not even close to the quality of our existing astronomy FPs. --Aqwis 12:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  What you call "noise" is individual stars. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 12:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Aqwis. Lycaon 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy Arp 256 (2008-04-24).jpg

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose, unsharp, not even close to the quality of our existing astronomy FPs, too much empty space. --Aqwis 12:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  What you call "noise" is individual stars. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 12:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Aqwis. Lycaon 12:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6670 (2008-04-24).jpg

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose, unsharp; not even close to the quality of our existing astronomy FPs. --Aqwis 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  What you call "noise" is individual stars. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 12:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Aqwis. Lycaon 12:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6240 (2008-04-24).jpg

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, better than the rest. --Aqwis 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose suboptimal quality. Lycaon 12:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  What is optimal quality? -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 14:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy ESO 593-8 (2008-04-24).jpg

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 454 (2008-04-24).jpg

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose extremely noisy. Lycaon 12:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  What you call "noise" is individual stars. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 12:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy UGC 8335 (2008-04-24).jpg

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6786 (2008-04-24).jpg

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 17 (2008-04-24).jpg

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy ESO 77-14 (2008-04-24).jpg

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6050 (2008-04-24).jpg

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too small. (please read guidelines

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may remove this template and replace with a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If no contrary views are expressed within 48 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 12:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • 1,052 × 1,052 is too small? -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 12:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • “Guideline: Images should have at least 2 real megapixels of information, for example, 1600x1250.” –Dilaudid 15:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Flowers Closeup 2800px.jpg

• Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. -- Ram-Man 02:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Info: Swamp Milkweed (Asclepias incarnata) flowers.
•  Support This is my favorite milkweed flower photo. It's got great composition, DoF, and high quality. It even has an insect. It's useful for illustrating a number of Wikipedia articles. -- Ram-Man 02:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I am sorry, I see no wow. On a side note, I would prefer more DOF and less busier background. Please login to vote, and sign your contributions. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs 06:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • At f/13 @ 6MP, the DoF is already at a maximum. -- Ram-Man 11:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ass.jpg

• Info: created by Raul654 - uploaded by Raul654 - nominated by Raul654 -- Econt 01:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Econt 01:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not wow. Barabas 02:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Nice ass. --Calibas 04:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice ass but too small. -- Laitche 05:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That can be a compliment to the subject of the image. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 12:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Definitely a nice ass, but the photo is nothing of the extrodinary. --Hebster 05:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral it is just too small - but it is a great high-key shot. --AngMoKio 06:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• {FPX}  Oppose much too low a resolution. --MichaelMaggs 06:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, there is already a support vote -- Alvesgaspar 07:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NSFW

• Question: Can we delist this image, please? It is not safe for work. Barabas 02:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Such are the perils of free speech. What's wrong with naked people anyway? I'm sorry that your culture shuns nudity but Wikimedia isn't censored. --Calibas 04:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With open content entry pages like this FP-voting-project, it is always potentially NSFW. This photo has just as much "right" to sit here 5/9 days as any other and should it be an FP that's also just in the nature of this system. Hebster 05:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Question: NSFW?? What about Not Safe for School?? Think of the children!! ;-) What if some kid opens FPC in the middle of his AP CS class? Freedom to share 05:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - This is not the first time the pic is nominated (may be at en:wiki?). It is a very good image but really too small. Anyone interested in asking the model for taking a larger res one? -- Alvesgaspar 07:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Better say: If anyone dare to ask ;-) BTW: The pic is FP on de:wiki. --AngMoKio 08:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cymbidium Clarisse Austin 'Best Pink' Flowers 2000px.JPG

• Info:Boat Orchid (Cymbidium Clarisse Austin 'Best Pink') flower chain. Created by Ram-Man - Uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lycaon 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support It's pretty nice. ;-) -- Ram-Man 00:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - Excellent composition (not too tight, this time...) -- Alvesgaspar 07:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful composition ^_^ - Noumenon _talk 07:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support very nice composition. --AngMoKio 11:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Wonderful composition and good quality. Can the metal thingy on the right hand side and in the background be cloned away? --norro 12:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Podarcis sicula.jpg

• Info: Portrait of an Italian Wall Lizard, Sardinia, Italy created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lycaon 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Most of the body is out of focus. For a photo site it might be ok, but this is an encyclopedia, and here it is a very serious drawback. Barabas 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please have a look at the scope of commons again... Lycaon 22:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Galopprennen Guedingen.jpg

• Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Flicka -- Flicka 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm nominating this picture although there are large parts of overexposure (unfortunately the jockeys always wear these snow white shining trousers.. why don't they prefer a nice light brown or something like that?) The reason I think it's a good picture is the race situation and the leading horses "face expression". -- Flicka 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too hard light resulting in overexposure, underexposure and hard shadows on the subject, and front horse is cropped. --norro 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Given the circumstances i think this is a rather decent photo (running horses aren't always that easy to get the right light on) but i think that it's a real shame that you have cropped the tale of the horse :( --Hebster 05:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bud syringa vulg.jpg

• Info: Buds of lilac Syringa vulgaris, East Bohemia, Czech Republic created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj
•  Support --Karelj 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting composition, but missing wow or high value for FP. Lycaon 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Girgentana-Ziegen

[edit] Original (left)

• Info: created & nominated by Böhringer 19:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Böhringer 19:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Nice composition, dof could be better. Freedom to share 20:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - Incredible composition, making us forgive the high ISO artifacts. Next time use ISO 100, you really didn't need that high sensitivity for his pic -- Alvesgaspar 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose overexposed -- Gorgo 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - very good composition Stefdn
•  Oppose Still, overexposed. It is also oversharpened. The last goat is out of focus, while it should be, technically. The most importantly, what is the value of this picture? Last, but not least, I think compositionally it is a mess. Nowhere enough wow too. Barabas 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

diese Ziegenart bewegt sich leider nicht im Goose-Step, sondern wie es scheint, chaotisch.

Das Besondere sind die nach innen gewundene Hörner und die sieht man hier auf einen Blick.

Diese Rasse war vom Aussterben bedroht

das Bild hat einen Artikel: Girgentana-Ziegen --Böhringer 07:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Info: If i could have the orig RAW file i would do a restauration Richard Bartz

[edit] Edit 1 (right)

• Info: - Gorgo is right about the overexposure, part of the goat's hair is burned. But this is such a delicious composition... I think this edit is a little better -- Alvesgaspar 22:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - Alvesgaspar 22:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support hatte leider aus Versehen die ISO 400 eingestellt. Die Überarbeitung ist sehr gut, Danke --Böhringer 07:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I can't read German... -- Alvesgaspar 07:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • He wrote that he accidentally switched to ISO 400, that the new revision is very good and want 2 thank you for that. --Richard Bartz 09:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Will support this, per Alvesgaspar's opinion. I just have to decide between versions. --Thermos 13:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit]