Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search
Featured picture candidates in other languages:

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

Skip to current candidates Skip to:

[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 than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the “unnatural” nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
  • Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.

  • Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.
  • Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.
  • Colour is important. Over saturated colours are not good.
  • Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the “feel” to the touch….
  • Perspective refers to the “angle” accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.
  • Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.
  • Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.
Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or colour AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition.
  • Symbolic meaning or relevance…. Opinion wars can begin here…. A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image “speaks” to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations….

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

[edit] Adding a new nomination

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

Step 1: copy the image name into this box (including the File: prefix), after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:YOUR-IMAGE-FILENAME.JPG. Then click on the "create new nomination" button.


Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page.

Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:YOUR-IMAGE-FILENAME.JPG}}

[edit] Voting

You can use following templates:

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

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

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 File: prefix), after the text already present in the box:


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

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

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

[edit] Featured picture candidate policy

[edit] General rules

  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 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.

[edit] Featuring and delisting rules

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

  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); same for delist/keep votes
  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 the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care.

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

[edit] See also

[edit] Table of contents

Contents


[edit] Featured picture candidates

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page cache

[edit] File:Basilique St Maximim La Sainte Baume.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 18:32:24
Interior of the Basilique of St Maximim la Sainte Baume, France.

  • Info: created by Esby - uploaded by ? - nominated by Yann (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Yann (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Western tent caterpillars Malacosoma californicum in Joshua Tree NP.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 15:55:35
Western tent caterpillars

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: The image was nominated here and did not get promoted. After that the quality of the image was improved.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Owl-Flying-against-a-Moonlit-Sky.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 14:27:58
Sepia drawing by Caspar David Friedrich

[edit] File:Buteo swainsoni (Calibas).jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 13:58:40
Juvenile Swainson's Hawk

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by -- Calibas (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Calibas (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- ... although some extra light would make it even better. H005 (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Egyptian paratrooper.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 11:57:01
An Egyptian paratrooper.

  • Info: created by Staff. Sgt. Aaron Allmon - uploaded by mo7amedsalim - nominated by mo7amedsalim -- mohamed salim (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- mohamed salim (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral -- Good quality, but cropped too tight on the left and right, and the other soldier is disturbing. -- H005 (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Amstel.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2009 at 20:36:06
A panorama of the river Amstel in the city's centre of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Visible are the famous Skinny Bridge and the theatre Carre.

[edit] File:Drink Up.JPG

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2009 at 17:01:49
Drink-Up. Tel-Aviv, Israel.

[edit] File:Canary Wharf Wide View 2, London - July 2009.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2009 at 14:56:25
Canary Wharf 360° view

  • Info: created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by kaʁstn --kaʁstn 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --kaʁstn 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment - There are some stitching errors, fix them please. -- Pro2 (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed them by hand - uploaded over the original. This was shot hand-held so unfortunately minor stitching faults resulted. Hopefully they've all gone now. Diliff (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

    • They're fixed... bit hasty to withdraw, isn't it? Diliff (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:12 foot pipe installation s.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2009 at 17:17:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated and sold by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting composition, but just too noisy + quite lot of chromatic aberration. —kallerna™ 18:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Right with the chromatism, but it's very interesting and value --> featured! --kaʁstn 20:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose - Not unusual or rare enough to overcome the technical flaws. Downtowngal (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dunas Fiambala Argentina.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2009 at 05:49:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:California island Vinckeboons5.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2009 at 00:34:40
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:2Heißluftballons.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 22:34:42
2 hot-air balloons

  • Info: created by H005 - uploaded by H005 - nominated by H005 -- H005 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- H005 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting idea, good lightning, sharpness, and overall image quality but I think the composition is weak. For me there is not a clear idea with the composition and the cropped text distracts. --Slaunger (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Slaunger. Good effort. Durova (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral just the cropped text is bad --kaʁstn 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Durova. —kallerna™ 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually I have virtually the same pic showing the entire balloons with all the text, but I find that perspective boring, whereas this one draws some tense out of its incompleteness, which I liked very much. But well, that's a matter of taste, and taste is undebatable, so of course I'm ok if you all think otherwise. -- H005 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
@ Slaunger, The "idea with the composition" is that these balloons are so huge that they are even larger than your field of vision, impossible for the eye to catch them completely. But never mind, if this idea doesn't come across to you, it has probably not been a good one. ;-) -- H005 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi H005, I see your point, and sometimes I also like unusual crops, be it of a face, or some object, and this one is close at getting to me, it catches my eye somewhat, but still leaves an impression of being messy and point-and-shoot-like. I agree with you that just capturing one balloon or two together can easily lead to a quite uninteresting composition as well, so some amount of creativity in capturing it is called upon.

[edit] File:Argiope sp.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 20:40:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: An Orb-weaver spider, Argiope sp spider sitting on a web decorations at the center of the web. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Muhammad (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Umnik (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- H005 (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. Durova (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Restrictive licence (not best practice and contradicts the note at Commons:Licencing). Minimal resolution (it would be great to see more detail on the spider's body).--Commander Keane (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support per Durova --kaʁstn 08:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support good and uncommon view --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Did you know that 1.2 only pictures are banned at german WP.   • Richard • [®] • 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Good for us this isn't the german WP Smile --Muhammad (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Rather sad, because it cannot be used at that project. Why that restrictive license ?   • Richard • [®] • 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • In what way is it more restrictive ? /Daniel78 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I am also interested why you use this restrictive license? --AngMoKio (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very interesting shot, but rather small. A crop of the real action would leave the image below size requirements. Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC). Restrictive license is not helping, but not the main reason for oppose. Lycaon (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I have ten other featured pictures with the same resolution and license. What has changed since then? --Muhammad (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The visibility of the license issues has changed, I'm sorry. Lycaon (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • There are at least two (1, 2) other images currently on the candidates' page with the exact same license and none has received any oppose based on "restrictive license". For what it's worth, you even supported one. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I can see no changes to the criteria and 1.2only is still considered a free license per commons. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Muhammad, somebody said: "Soap and water and common sense are the best disinfectants". Too bad not everybody knows how to use them :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Mainly because of licence & resolution. —kallerna™ 16:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You too kallerna? :( --Muhammad (talk)
      • Sorry :(. Why the licence? It would definitely be FP with better licence & resolution, and you can make both of them better with new upload. —kallerna™ 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • If this passes as an FP, I will probably upload a higher resolution once I get faster internet in a month or so, but I am afraid the license will remain the same. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
          • just out of curiosity: how did you get your 9mb panos uploaded? This pic here in the original resolution wouldn't even have half the mb-size of your panos. Furthermore I'd be really interested why you insist on that license? Many of your photos are really great, also this one, but with all those restrictions it is really getting difficult to support. ..and as Richard mentioned on german WP those 1.2 pics aren't welcomed anymore. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Hehe, I spent hours uploading those and I had faster upload speeds then. Seriously though I spent more than 6 hours to upload this. I like this license because most of my images are also available for sale as stock images and a completely free license would render my sales ineffective and thus I would be unable to buy more equipment and upload better images. This is a win win situation for wiki and for me. --Muhammad (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Why we should feature commercial pictures and pictures which can't be used in a associated project (deWP) ?   • Richard • [®] • 20:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Wikimedia is a separate entity from deWP and there are different rules. It was deWP though that decided not to use 1.2only images. In my opinion, they are losing quite a large amount of pictures for a crappy rule. --Muhammad (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                • That license issue is a bogus reason IMO. Equipment is not that expensive. I made 950€ from my pictures which are all on commons under cc-by-sa in the last two years. I'm not using stock sites. You are better than me so you should have even better chances with free licenses. People use images all over the net when the license is not too restrictive (and with attribution → e.g. see here). This is publicity and the odd sale follows. I don't advertise my pictures, but interested parties still find them. Lycaon (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • I don't want to whine but I've already spent app $1500 on equipment and for a student living in a third world country, that is a lot. (Average Tanzanian earns that much in 4-5yrs without expenses). With a restrictive license, rich companies who can afford to spend money, are prevented from exploiting photographers. Attribution is good but at the end of the day I am not gaining anything (apart from a little exposure). For the few earlier images I had released under the cc-by-sa, sure people use them but not one person has been willing to pay, and quite rightly so. If a single line of attribution allows you free use, why not? Sounds like slave labour to me--Muhammad (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • In 95% of cases, my CC-BY-SA images just get treated as public domain for use. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Mainly because of arguments against license and resolution. :) →Diti the penguin — 08:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Great EV, good quality and per Diti. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You're back Smile --Muhammad (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • No, Muhammad, it is not me. It is only only 1/4 of me , 1/4 that the African Wild Dog has not finished just yet.Smile--Mbz1 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Ignoring the license debate (it is a valid license, after all); I look forward to seeing a larger resolution version of this lovely picture, so it can grace my desktop. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Can someone explain to me just why the (perfectly valid) 1.2 license is not accepted on the German Wiki? And why this picture (and every other wiki) should suffer because they've made that choice? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support The focus of some people (not only) in the German Wikipedia is set on free commercial use, an idea which got strong in de since the cooperation with de:Bertelsman, Spiegel and de.wikipedia in the biggest lexical portal in Germany. Since then some of our Wikipedians struggled successfully to forbid the upload of GFDL 1.2 pictures on de.wikipedia. That does not mean, that it is forbidden to use 1.2 photographs from the commons as far as I see. Hundreds of them are used to illustrate articles of de. GFDL 1.2 is a free licence and is only a problem for commercial printers, as far as I see. Another problem for the opponents of 1.2 is that it is not possible to change the license without the allowance of the author/uploader of the pictures. --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Panthera pardus close up.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 13:20:05
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: The image features a Panthera pardus with a very high quality. Very sharp image, the warm colors contrast to the actual nature of the beast. Very good depth of field with clear and sharp distinction between the foreground and background. I don't think we have such a good picture of a Tiger on Commons. created by tropicaLiving - uploaded , nominated by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --kaʁstn 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support, the composition makes the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Simpledot (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Aqwis. →Diti the penguin — 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -Words in sanskrit (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Durova (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop on bottom right. —kallerna™ 16:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Here kitty kitty kitty! Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support i agree —kallerna, but overall very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - per kallerna -- Pro2 (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Reasonable quality for a zoo shot, but unfortunate crop of the paws. Lycaon (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please add information on the zoo to the description. Lycaon (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
done.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Lycaon (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Crop could be less tight, but pic is good nevertheless--Tired time (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree that it would be improved by showing more of the paw in the corner, but the animal has so strong a presence that I support it anyway. Fg2 (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. --Calibas (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:European hornet 090621.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 09:38:12
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Aconcagua - uploaded by Aconcagua - nominated by Ra'ike -- Ra'ike T C 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion a very authentic close-up of a hornet. -- Ra'ike T C 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Funny, good quality --kaʁstn 09:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: What do you mean with authentic close-up ?   • Richard • [®] • 17:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    Hallo Richard, mit "authentic" meinte ich lebensnah (oder auch lebensecht). Damit wollte ich ausdrücken: Als ich das Bild das erste Mal sah, hatte ich das Gefühl, diese Hornisse ist noch mitten in der Bewegung, kommt jeden Moment aus dem Bild gekrochen und berührt mich mit dem linken, ausgestreckten Vorderbein ;-) -- Ra'ike T C 19:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    Understand Smile Before I did wonder about the term authentic because of the wood lath where the hornet is resting. Being a hobby biologist recently I had liked seeing this animal resting on a plant or the hornet nest like Alves Gaspar supplied us once with his fantastic poster of Wasps - but on the other hand hornets meanwhile are a synanthropic species so the lath should be ok. I like it and indeed it's an impressing picture but must give a  Neutral because of low DOF (f/2,8) ,the missing crispness at that size and the addressed environment. Nice going!   • Richard • [®] • 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support like Ra'ike --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DOF (f/2,8), the missing crispness at that size and the addressed environment. (Per Richard Bartz) —kallerna™ 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    The DOF maybe is a bit too low, but in this way it imo assists and reinforced the action of that animal. -- Ra'ike T C 10:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Kallerna, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support like Ra'ike --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kluft-photo-fireworks-Cameron-Park-June-2009-Img 2951c.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 08:43:36
Fireworks in Cameron Park, California on June 27, 2009

  • Info: created by User:Ikluft - uploaded by User:Ikluft - nominated by User:Ikluft -- Ikluft (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support as nom -- Ikluft (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not the best crop, decent quality. I've seen better fireworks-photos. —kallerna™ 19:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Those long exposures (5 seconds on the link provided) are actually easier shots to get - but they're entirely a different style and result. This one with 7 shells exploding in a 1/40th of a second exposure is far more difficult to get and takes a fair amount of luck as well. Also, what specifically didn't you like about the crop? I cropped it with intent to preserve the widest shell and aspect ratio. But cropping can be adjusted (such as not worrying about the aspect ratio and cutting more off the sides) if it makes a difference. Ikluft (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • With the crop I meant that the whole firework isn't on the photo and there's too much of black area on the sides. —kallerna™ 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Uhmm yes, I have to say that it's not exeptional enough   • Richard • [®] • 21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative

Fireworks in Cameron Park, California on June 27, 2009

OK, I shouldn't have bothered trying to retain the aspect ratio of the original photo. Fair enough - this alternative addresses that. I also encourage reviewers to observe that this is not the same kind of photography as a long-exposure shot of fireworks. As I mentioned above, this is a 1/40th sec exposure with 7 shells in various stages of exploding. The illumination of the smoke clouds from earlier shells shows there is focus and detail. It's in effect an action shot, which is very difficult to get with fireworks. Submitted again for your review... Ikluft (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - This is an excellent encyclopedia illustration of 'simultaneous fireworks'; the smoke clouds contribute to the effect. But for FP a more beautiful (but less accurate) long exposure is more appropriate. A good and useful photo, just not FP. Downtowngal (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I know it was a difficult shot to get. But fireworks pics need color, which these shells just don't have. There's no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Since there obviously are white fireworks, color isn't a requirement on its own - the different types of fireworks photography are not better than the others. It distracts the issue to say it isn't a different style. The guidelines say the value of a photo is enhanced by how it adds variety to the collection. I recommend a look through Category:Fireworks to see exposures of more than one second are very well represented, and are the ones that should hardly be considered special. They're analagous to photos of sunsets, which the guidelines address specifically. Ikluft (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Melanargia galathea 01 (MK).JPG

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 08:22:20
a Melanargia galathea

  • Info: everything by -- Leviathan (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Leviathan (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good --kaʁstn 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition, but bad quality. What kind of objective do you have? —kallerna™ 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The overall quality and DOF isn't that bad - it's a good solid shot. It's a pity that the wing tips are blurry - I assume the wind has blown towards the wings.   • Richard • [®] • 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: I took this picture with my old Tamron AF Aspherical LD 28-200 mm (15 years and really lackly so its everytime a fight to get a nearly sharp picture). Unfortunately i don't have any other objektives yet. At the top of my wishlist stands the Tamron 90mm Macro. But the money... ;-) Richard is right, it was really windy that day... Greetings --Leviathan (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, money ! :-Y   • Richard • [®] • 13:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dionaea muscipula flower 1.JPG

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 07:37:06
Venus Flytrap flower - 20mm in diameter

[edit] File:Cladiona2 (Terre de Feu).jpg

Cladoniaceae (Tierra del Fuego)

  • Info: created by Butterfly voyages - uploaded by Butterfly voyages - nominated by Butterfly voyages --Butterfly voyages (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Butterfly voyages (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A little bit to low DoF, which makes none of the presented individuals clearly visible. + not sufficient species descriptions, but that can be easily fixed. Masur (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --kaʁstn 09:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Masur. Lycaon (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As others opponents. --Karel (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very interesting picture but imperfect execution. DOF, crop, lighting (some eroded parts)   • Richard • [®] • 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bufo_bufo_2009_G1.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 16:39:16
The common toad (Bufo bufo). Example of an excellent camouflage.

  • Info: The common toad (Bufo bufo). Example of an excellent camouflage.
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't want supprot but I can't oppose. Very good photo, but the background... I can't really see the animal, but it's just the normal background. So  Neutral --kaʁstn 09:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support The description says it's an example of camouflage. The animal and background contrast aren't a problem for me because it does what it says. It's a good photo. Ikluft (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support good example for camouflage --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness and object are excellent, but lightness is not balanced, very dark on the left side. -- H005 (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gentiana verna

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 10:16:43
Gentiana verna

  • Info: all by -- Böhringer (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: The Spring Gentian (Gentiana verna) is a species of the genus Gentiana and one of its smallest members, normally only growing to a height of a few centimetres.
  •  Support -- Böhringer (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Thou crop could be bit tighter. —kallerna™ 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Coreopsis Bud.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 09:53:04
Coreopsis Bud

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Twdragon (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I will support if the background will be normal --kaʁstn 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the bud is closed only at night ?   • Richard • [®] • 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • No, this photo was taken at the daytime. --Twdragon (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Is it possible to identify more than the family of this species ?   • Richard • [®] • 16:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • No, it's impossible for me because of knowledge absence --Twdragon (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I declined this at QI not only because of the black background but for the overly-tight crop and the blurriness at the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Zuch dziewczyna.JPG

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 07:16:29
Scout

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, imo not featured --kaʁstn 13:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - agree with Carschten. Undoubtedly useful, but doesn't have the FP wow. Downtowngal (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like it really much, but it's just too noisy & crop is slightly too tight. —kallerna™ 19:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nycticorax violaceus (at beach).jpg

Nycticorax violaceus at beach

[edit] File:Smoldering charcoal briquettes.JPG

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 21:15:14
Smoldering charcoal briquettes in a barbecue grill

  • How is it nothing special? It's a high-quality and useful image that satisfies all the criteria as far as I can see. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It barely shows the smoldering parts of the briquettes. A more colorful image would be better. Downtowngal (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:LeedsSkyBanstead0409f.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 15:22:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Chemical Engineer - uploaded by Chemical Engineer - nominated by Mtaylor848 -- Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Nominated this image, as I have tried to take a similar image of the same landscape before, however it can be quite dificult to get an unobscured picture. This I think is a very succesful attempt.Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low quality, grainy, especially the sky. Too much jpeg compression I think--Tired time (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kallerna --kaʁstn 13:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Keswick, Cumbria Panorama 1 - June 2009.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 13:23:34
Keswick, Cumbria (England)

  • Info: created and upoladed by Diliff - nominated by Carschten -- kaʁstn 13:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --kaʁstn 13:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support, great! --Aqwis (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • what a wonder ;-) --kaʁstn 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice picture, hard to get one like this as it seems to be always raining in this part of England. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Blimey, kaʁstn, this was only uploaded yesterday! Maedin\talk 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I saw the nomination at the German Wikipedia ;-) --kaʁstn 13:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support of course. MadGeographer (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Claus (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Estrilda (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Simpledot (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ianaré (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- I've been experimenting with panoramic pictures a bit, but it will take a long time to get them as good as this, if ever! MartinD (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Zuffe (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support   ■ MMXXtalk  17:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Wordsworth would be proud. Although I am having trouble getting it to open at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lotus Nelumbo 'Mrs. Perry D. Slocum' Dried Seed Head 2000px.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 02:53:03
Lotus seed head

  • Info: Created, uploaded, nominated by Ram-Man 02:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Lotusen (Nelumbo en 'Mrs. Perry D. Slocum') dried seed head.
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 02:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The bottom half should be cut off, as it not in focus. Composition error. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The composition is intentional. The particular choice is more "dynamic" than the suggested crop. -- Ram-Man 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per George Chernilevsky, but if it's cut, I will support --kaʁstn 13:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it as it is. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. I disagree with George Chernilevsky. —kallerna™ 18:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Claus (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support nice composition and colors --ianaré (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Could be a shower head for those who play with lysergic acid diethylamide   • Richard • [®] • 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support per nom. Durova (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Lovely!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Closeup.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 01:49:33
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: A mature black swallowtail (Papilio polyxenes) caterpillar on its host plant.
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support excellent --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support →Diti the penguin — 09:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Peripitus (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good! --kaʁstn 13:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful 144.32.2.205 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Please log in for voting --kaʁstn 14:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy background. Could be edited in photoshop. —kallerna™ 19:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Simpledot (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral noise prevents my suppport --ianaré (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support // tsca [re] 14:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Durova (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support this one is actually stunning --che 07:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Restrictive license prevents me to support. Lycaon (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • There is nothing wrong with the GFDL 1.2 and the fact is that it is one of many acceptable licenses allowed on the Commons (Commons:Licensing). This comment is nothing more than a personal opinion that does not belong here and has nothing to do with the rules for evaluating FPs (and could potentially sway other voters incorrectly). If you don't like the license, don't vote. -- Ram-Man 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
My vote is per de:Wikipedia:Lizenzvorlagen für Bilder. Images on Commons should be usable on all wikimdia projects. I didn't oppose because of the good quality of the image, though I can't support for said reason. Lycaon (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Purple Milkweed Asclepias purpurascens Head.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 00:50:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 00:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Flowers of the Purple Milkweed (Asclepias purpurascens)
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 00:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --kaʁstn 13:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No wow, a bit too ordinary--Tired time (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well done, but just one of too many well-done flower pictures -- H005 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support countering previous oppose. I don't think 'too many well-done flower pictures' is a valid opposition argument. Lycaon (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Restrictive license. Lycaon (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You complain about an invalid opposition argument and then you do this? The GFDL v.1.2 is not only an acceptable license, but has been the "preferred" license for many years. I know you've read Commons:Licensing, but perhaps it bears a reminder. There are no licenses allowed by the Commons that should bear this type of reaction. -- Ram-Man 00:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no wow, bit ordinary and bit low DOF --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Connecticut Yankee4.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 00:47:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Daniel Carger Beard - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Connecticut Yankee.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: From Mark Twain's novel A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Frontispiece illustration to the 1889 edition, scanned from the original artist's drawing.
  •  Support -- Durova (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Has lots of value. Looks good as a thumbnail and is of high resolution. -- Ram-Man 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Drat! I was going to do this, but ended up helping someone else try, who never quite finished. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good quality, image is interesting --ianaré (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality and historic value --George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Wojciech Kilar 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 19:46:30
Wojciech Kilar

[edit] File:Santorinisunset.JPG

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 19:17:58
Sunset in Santorini

  • Info: created by MehmetBilgen - uploaded by MehmetBilgen - nominated by User:Mbilgen -- Mbilgen (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbilgen (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Is it tilted? --kaʁstn 12:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry i don't understand the meaning of tilted, but this photo is not modified by any program. I took it by placing the camera on a level surface and set the shutter speed to a couple of seconds as i remember and f to around 8 so the info on the photo is not correct.It was almost night when it was taken so the scene was not as bright as it seems here.. Mbilgen (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As i understand, this is taken during the evening. Most of these kind of panoramas are taken ether at night, or during the day and I think it is so for a reason, because this picture just doesn't do the trick. A bit too dark for me. And looks good only when zoomed a lot. Close call though--Tired time (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose regretfully. Shot a little too late. Agree with Tired time. Downtowngal (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative

Sunset in Santorini

[edit] Alternative2

Sunset in Santorini

  •  Support
  •  Oppose Sorry, but just adding some light isn't sufficient, it's overall too dark and, to me, simply not special enough. Also, the horizon ist not horizontal. -- H005 (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:BolivarReconsFlag - 22809(40).JPG

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 18:30:27
Bolivar Peninsula Reconstruction

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by DaFoos -- DaFoos (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- DaFoos (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is tilted, underexposed and unsharp. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Info: The image is not tilted and the brighter, more colorful flag is meant to contrast against the background in the setting sun. This image was taken after a day of reconstructive efforts on the peninsula (due to Hurricane Ike), so forgive the amateur camera.--DaFoos (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Tilt is 1.05° CCW. Lycaon (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The flag-pole itself has been tilted from the excessively high winds of the area. That tilt was meant to be reduced. --DaFoos (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That was for the horizon, the flag-pole is tilted 1.34° CW. So wind tilt is probably 2.39° CW. Lycaon (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre.jpg

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 18:28:21
Boulevard du Temple, by Louis Daguerre

  • Info: Very very old photo created by Louis Daguerre - uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
  •  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Was probably OK when he made it and has undoubtedly some historical value, but time has destroyed it for FP I'm afraid. Lycaon (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: This is Louis Daguerre's famous "Boulevard du Temple": the first photograph to successfully record a human being. 1830s technology required exposure times of over ten minutes; the shot captures a man at lower left who stood still. Durova (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  strong support –Juliancolton | Talk 01:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Obvious support. This is a great image for its time. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Valuable, but lacks in almost every other area. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral For 1838 featured, but imo not featured --kaʁstn 12:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support for its extraordinary value. Downtowngal (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Strong support A famous photo, the quality is good.--Claus (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other opposers. —kallerna™ 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm a bit wary to oppose here as I don' want to be shouted at as too often happens with the oppose for certain images these days. But this image is too far gone to become FP. I agree wholeheartedly with /Daniel78. Estrilda --Estrilda (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other opposers. Maybe it should go to valued image.--Tired time (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Historical value, and it looks artistic to me. --Lošmi (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Lošmi. MadGeographer (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Had to think this over a couple of days. Occasionally the historical importance of a photograph makes it unsuitable for restoration. This is one of those times. Yes, it's rough. Yes, it's decayed. Yet envision this as cutting edge technology for 1838-1839, and it's stunning. One of the landmarks of photographic history. Durova (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support per Durova. Yann (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support per Durova. Another classic where the notion of FP just do not cut it. GerardM (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Outstanding exhibit of both early photography and the before-Haussmann Paris. --Mylius (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tower top 2007 G1.jpg

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 16:04:04

The old water tower in Vinnytsia, Ukraine.

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The vertical lines are not vertical. I'd also prefer to see the clock face-on. It is awkward the way it is now. Architecture can be rather dry, so any defects take away from the "wow". -- Ram-Man 01:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ram-man ; unfortunate framing/point of view. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hamburg-090612-0163-DSC 8260 retouched.jpg

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 00:00:34
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Mbdortmund - uploaded by Mbdortmund - nominated by Mbdortmund retouched by user:AlMare -- Mbdortmund (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbdortmund (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support good view --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice --kaʁstn 09:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent! --Sir James (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing special IMHO. Sorry. —kallerna™ 16:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, have to agree with Kallerna. --Aqwis (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Aqwis. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Paris 16 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Architecture is very static and often very dry. This does not have any real wow. Most high quality architecture photos like this should be QIs. -- Ram-Man 01:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good quality, but the subject is not interesting enough--Tired time (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Avala (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not only the architecture in a Baroque taste matters. For me, it is valued view. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thx, George. This building is IMHO an important view for Hamburg because its directly over the "Landungsbrücken" in St. Pauli, the central place of the port of Hamburg. But next time I will prefer to propose a macro of the tiny little fly on the third window of the second floor. *g* --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment Touché. Macros and landscapes. It is simple though: nature's creations are more often beautiful than human creations. Downtowngal (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        •  Comment One of the tasks of Wikipedia is to show the architecture of our cities. The answers here are not only critizising my picture what would absolutely be OK and I wouldn't have said a single word, but general contras against any picture of the real buildings in our cities are IMHO a problem for our project. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
          •  Comment I can sympathise with you Mbdortmund, insect pictures seem to occupy most of the limelight in this section. I enjoy them, but I wish we could have an 'Insect Free Month', so that other pictures could be concentrated on. As for your picture, sadly, I don't find a view like this particularly exciting; photos of buildings need something unusual (for example, perspective, colour or setting) too really stand out. This one is a real example of what I like to see. If you like, I can show you a couple of others I think are great; maybe they could inspire you? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
            •  Comment 1. We need more of the great macros, too. 2. The picture you named is great. --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sheepskin hats.jpg

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2009 at 08:47:09
Sheepskin hats

  • Info: created by Morten Oddvik - uploaded by Geagea - nominated by Matasg -- Matasg 08:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Matasg 08:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would say a QI-image, but not featured --kaʁstn 09:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not impressive enough--Tired time (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the content, and quality is xcellent. -- H005 (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Enallagma cyathigerum (by).jpg

Enallagma cyathigerum

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --kaʁstn 08:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Lycaon (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support really good --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support As I said. —kallerna™ 15:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Detail is excellent.RandyKaelber (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose At f/6.3, the DoF is way too shallow and there are no mitigating reasons. -- Ram-Man 01:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Durova (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral you've definitely gotten better but DOF is still a bit shallow. --ianaré (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO DOF is ok --Muhammad (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sympetrum vulgatum LC0168.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 23:50:55
Vagrant darter

  • Info: All done by Jörg Hempel -- LC-de (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Male Vagrant Darter (Sympetrum vulgatum)
  •  Support -- LC-de (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wings not so good --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment EXIF-data is lost. Could you add it? —kallerna™ 16:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • no, I couldn't add it anymore for this pic (see comments before the TOC on my discussion page). --LC-de (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support —kallerna™ 19:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dangling swamp-lover Helophilus pendulus.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 23:03:12
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Mdf - uploaded by Richard Bartz - nominated by   • Richard • [®] • 23:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: The Dangling swamp lover (Helophilus pendulus)
  •  Support --   • Richard • [®] • 23:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --LC-de (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Top level. -- Ram-Man 00:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support shure --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Helophilus species are resembling each other quite a bit. H. pendulus is a hoverfly occurring in Central and northern Europe (incl. Iceland) ([1], [2]). It does not occur in North America. H. groenlandicus ([3]), of which I unfortunately didn't find an illustration yet, and H. hybridus ([4]) at the other hand are holarctic species, also occurring in Canada. You should re-evaluate your identification. Postponing support until then. Lycaon (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Read this, please.   • Richard • [®] • 10:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the PDF: an old but interesting key. I'm even less convinced now ;-). These flies are difficult, and the distinguishing features (face, hind femur/tibia) are not clearly visible on the picture. I think we need the opinion of a syrphid taxonomist here. Lycaon (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
In progress   • Richard • [®] • 13:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, as it is a very worthy image. Lycaon (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I know. M. hybridus could be excluded [5].   • Richard • [®] • 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support But a wrong ID is far worse than no ID at all. I would appreciate it if you could investigate! Maedin\talk 07:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --kaʁstn 09:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support, fantastic. --Aqwis (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --AngMoKio (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Superb quality. -- MJJR (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support, whatever species it is. Nice composition. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Created by Mdf, uploaded Richard Bartz. Why and how? —kallerna™ 19:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename issue Lycaon (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cherry_tree_blossom_2007_G1.JPG

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 18:12:22
Cherry tree blossom

[edit] File:20090129 paris manifestation.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 14:12:52
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: People watching a demonstration in Paris on january 29th, 2009.
  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Romanceor [parlons-en] 14:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Romanceor [parlons-en] 14:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, it's an interesting photo, but fuzzy and no really Wow --kaʁstn 15:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment I find more wow in this type of pictures than in insects' macros... but I very well understand it's just my opinion (of course not for the context which I don't care, but for the subject : people). --Romanceor [parlons-en] 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support an interesting photo--Claus (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting people on the stairs. Well chosen. --Dereckson (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - The photo doesn't tell us anything about the manifestation except that some photographers were tired. Well-composed but not valuable. Downtowngal (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment This is because the subject is not the demonstration ; it is the public of it. Am I the tired photograph ? --Romanceor [parlons-en] 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment - No, you're not the tired photographer. The people in focus look tired, or maybe just cold! Actually, I disagree that the people in focus are "the public" of the demonstration. But that's another discussion. Downtowngal (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the picture, which tells a story --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Really interesting and I would feature it, but the noise reduction dropped all the details away. :( →Diti the penguin — 08:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Diti. —kallerna™ 16:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Not ideally technically, but it is pulse of real life --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ianaré (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Downtowngal. MadGeographer (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Ziga (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Real Alcazar Siviglia.JPG

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 12:47:10
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by -- Marten253 (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Marten253 (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but no wow and not the best quality --kaʁstn 15:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness, overblown right side. --Yerpo (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Montjuic2.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 12:07:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:Ciucas stanca1.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 08:38:59
Eerie landscape in the Ciucaş mountains, Prahova County, Romania.

Anonymous votes not allowed. --Yerpo (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Good composition and exposure, but not very sharp. Would support for QI without reservations, but FP... not so sure. --Yerpo (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - bad qualitiy -- Pro2 (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose – Quality, value, white balance, shadows could be better exposed --Ernie (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The scenery is beautiful, but not special enough. Sharpness is good, but some areas too dark. Also, the fog in the background is hiding too much to see the mountains, but is not enough to be impressive. -- H005 (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gymnadenia rhellicani (spike).jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 07:27:11
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: Rhellica gymnadenia (flower spike is 22mm high), close to Gletschertafel, Lötschental, Switzerland. Everything by Lycaon (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Lycaon (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Marten253 (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --kaʁstn 13:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yerpo (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral This has a very pleasing composition, which is why I am not opposing. Taking photos of saturated reds like this is extremely difficult to do without blowing out the color as in this picture. The DoF is a tad on the shallow side as well and it could be sharper. -- Ram-Man 01:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ianaré (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ram-Man   • Richard • [®] • 20:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Set Candidate - Henry Holiday's Illustrations to Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 00:05:53

First off, I apologise for this formatting: It's hard to set up 10 plates simply and cleanly when they switch between landscape and portrait.

Right. These are the original illustrations to Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark, a sequel of sorts to "Jabberwocky". Full descriptions below. These have been the subject of at least some critical comment (see en:The Hunting of the Snark, for instance), since they were approved by Carroll, and he specified some aspects, such as the snark never being distinctly seen. This set is pretty much complete: I believe there may have also been a cover illustration, but I don't know if it was by Holiday, and mine lacks it. I'll try to pick that up at some later time.

  • Info: created by Henry Holiday - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, no provisions are made to feature sets on commons. As always, it would have been nice to have discussed such nominations before putting them on FPC. Lycaon (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ummm...Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Upcoming set nomination Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I saw that announcement, did I miss the discussion? Lycaon (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It was discussed in advance, and a set has run successfully before. It's a bit late to store up your complaint for after the person has spent days cleaning up and preparing a huge set of images, and then to suddenly object when the work is done, and the nomination runs, particularly when you specifically say you saw the announcement. As the FPX template says, "Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support." - I would appreciate that being done as soon as possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Can you point me to that discussion? The previous nom is irrelevant for me as I was out of the country that time. Lycaon (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Upcoming set nomination, as you were linked above. You indicated you were aware of this thread. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Nonono, You know what I'm talking about, that's the statement, not the discussion :-(. Lycaon (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
              • I specifically asked for how people wanted it to run, and asked for any comments. I cannot force people to comment, but you say you were aware of it, so why did you wait until after this went live? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Well done on the restoration. And yes, Lycaon, you should have raised any concerns when Adam asked. Very bad form to wait until now. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I can't remember you approving at that time? Bad form? Lycaon (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I had no problems with the set being nominated, and no suggestions to offer, seeing as the last set went so well, so I didn't see too much point in commenting. In effect, we gave our implied consent by not objecting. There is no rule that states I have to comment on a proposal, but if I am given the chance to do so, as you were, and do not, then it is bad form to object later. I trust Adam, and while his subject matter may not excite me as much as some, I appreciate the effort he puts in, and consider your actions and manner an insult to both him and his work. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support This is an obvious support. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support per Durova. A fine contribution to our project. Also per ShockwaveLover. Durova (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support –Juliancolton | Talk 16:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - as supporters. Downtowngal (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Abstain As for videos, I think the guidelines/information should be updated and approved for new formats before voting. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment agree with Daniel78. I often said that the guidelines should get updated before we nominate restorations here. In my opinion those pics here are a QI or VI, but a FP?! We don't even know how we should judge restorations. I often saw restorations here that lost a lot of details compared to the original, still many users voted with 'pro', which can't be the right way imho. So i think we have to set up guidelines otherwise it makes no sense to nominate restorations. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
With respect, we've had restorations here for about three years. I'd happily write up guidelines, but we also don't have guidelines for a lot of things, like diagrams and illustrations. This seems irrelevant to this specific nomination. In any case, the restoration work here was minor and limited. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This isn't the place to propose a sudden halt to a practice that Commons has routinely done for years. Durova (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some are good, others are (very) plain. One is amost white, one is almost black. And trying to get so many image to be featured at once is not very fair IMHO. --Estrilda (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a complete set: I think it gains value for being complete that it doesn't have alone, as it makes Commons a really strong resource for The Hunting of the Snark - which it wasn't before this, and wouldn't be if it wasn't complete. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support GerardM (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Great work!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Grand Palais.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 19:33:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by amymichon (Flickr) - uploadedand nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral We can see a bus and a car at the bottom of the picture --Olivier Jaulent (talk)
    Edited. I hope it's better.--Paris 16 (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    Edited. Now pict is just a photoshoped one : I can see part of the bus --Olivier Jaulent (talk)
    Edited. Correction look better --Olivier Jaulent (talk)
  •  Support per Mbdortmund --kaʁstn 13:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Claus (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Pretty but not special. FP guidelines state, "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." Downtowngal (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Agree -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Downtowngal --Ernie (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Downtowngal Cacophony (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per the sunset "rule". -- Ram-Man 01:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downtowngal really proved his point. It becomes even more obvious, why there is such a guideline, when you look at other sunset pics--Tired time (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support This does not mean we must not support any sunset pictures anymore. This one I find indeed special due to the open glass roof skeleton and the extraordinarily clear rays. -- H005 (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pachygrapsus marmoratus 2008 G1.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 17:00:41
Marbled rock crab (Pachygrapsus marmoratus).

  • Info: created by George Chernilevsky - uploaded by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Weak Support: A very good photo with good quality, but the backgound... In thumb I can't really see the motive... --kaʁstn 19:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --High Contrast (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very nice quality. The background is too distracting for me though. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support The background looks natural to me. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Background are inshore, breakers zone. This crab protected by the Law in Ukraine: animal Red Book list. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Per La Révolution des crabes : "Les crabes même pas beaux, les crabes même pas bouffables, ceux qui puent et qui donnent des maladies." --Romanceor [parlons-en] 23:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support It does look confusing in thumbnail, but it's very clear at full size. I don't see why its thumbnail should detract from its worth as a featured picture. Maedin\talk 08:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support per Maedin. Lycaon (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Daniel 178 - background. --Karel (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose – Definitely a QI. Valuable enough to become featured? Not to me. --Ernie (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Squirrel Scratching the Armpit with its Hindlimb.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 16:35:45
Squirrel scratching armpit

  • Info: created by Wingchi - uploaded by Wingchi - nominated by Valenajarro -- Valenajarro (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Valenajarro (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Sweet, it would scraping itself. But please the next time take a photo with the tail --kaʁstn 19:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unidentified and badly cropped. Lycaon (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cute but the lighing is very dull. Can't say it's underexposed but it could do better with a tad more photons :-)   • Richard • [®] • 23:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Buckingham Palace, London - April 2009.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 12:24:27
Buckingham Palace

  • Info: created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Matasg -- Matasg 12:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Matasg 12:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit tilted and I think not the best photo of Diliff --kaʁstn 12:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support, I don't think it's tilted, it's just distortion due to the focal length. --Aqwis (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks tilted and I feel the white balance is a bit off. Would also be better without that airplane. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a good image, the presence of the aeroplane is really neither here nor there. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a main flight path in London, so seeing aeroplanes there is standard. Like Aqwis, it's not tilt, it's a small amount of natural distortion. Maedin\talk 15:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support per Aqwis and Maedin --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Avala (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral If the plane was removed, I'd support it. Should be a nobrainer with GIMP. -- H005 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:2007 Matterhorn.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 12:11:19
Matterhorn from the train to the Gornergrat

  • Info: created by Alps - uploaded by Alps - nominated by MadGeographer -- MadGeographer (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MadGeographer (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I don't like the train in the top. I tried to cropped it here --kaʁstn 13:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like --Marten253 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose - I like the composition a lot, but the extra-dark sky is artificial. Downtowngal (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Downtowngal. It looks like a polarizing filter used the wrong way. --Ernie (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't care for the composition and I am missing the EXIF. It looks like a polarizing filter possibly used at too wide an angle.
  • Request: Please login, anonymous votes will not be counted. Thank you. --ianaré (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral great compostion, but sky really is unnatural --ianaré (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Great sky (Over 2000 meter the skye often look so dark!) But next time less JPG Compression! HBR (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As opposers. Lycaon (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Pudelek (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mischocyttarus flavitarsis Head Closeup.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 07:18:10
Paper Wasp (Mischocyttarus Flavitarsis) Head Closeup

  • Info: created by Sanjay Acharya - uploaded by Sanjay Acharya - nominated by Sanjay Acharya -- Sanjay ach (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Sanjay ach (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Very interesting, but not the best quality and I don't like the cropped animal --kaʁstn 12:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad crop. Sorry. —kallerna™ 14:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Many times cropping doesn't bother me, but I am really bothered by this particular one. -- Ram-Man 01:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor crop --ianaré (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Crop is really a pity   • Richard • [®] • 20:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Changdeok palace(east place).jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 02:30:23
Changdeok Place of Joseon Dynasty in Seoul, Korea

  • Info: created by Unknown man - uploaded by Ryuch - nominated by Ryuch -- Ryuch (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ryuch (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good work has to award --kaʁstn 12:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Great work, but technically just under minimum size. Can it be gotten any larger? The larger we can get it, the better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Adam Cuerden. should've been FPX'ed on size. Lycaon (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Borago officinalis (flower).jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 21:33:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: Borage flower (Borago officinalis L.) near Font de Tita, el Perelló (Catalonia), Spain. all by Lycaon (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No wow--Claus (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, too busy and blurred. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Good: the quality - bad: too busy --kaʁstn 12:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support But please add bit brightness into photo. —kallerna™ 14:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support For me, this is a compelling composition. -- Ram-Man 00:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --David Perez (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yerpo (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support good composition --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No wow. There are a lot of featured micro pictures already, I think we should only feature the very best of them --Tired time (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Kalanchoea (talk) 2:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ianaré (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice but nothing special and too blurred MadGeographer (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support, really wonderful composition, fresh colors and high DOF. -- Ra'ike T C 11:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Piazza Communale Poschiavo 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 16:09:17
Piazza Communale Poschiavo

  • Info: created by Böhringer - uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by MadGeographer -- MadGeographer (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MadGeographer (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support definitely not the best, but a good photo. I like the snow hills in the background --kaʁstn 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate choice of projection spoils it for me. I can't tell what's straight or curved... Lycaon (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Avala (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support The verticals are perfectly vertical (as they should be), the horizontals are curved due to the panoramic effect: no problem for me! Nice picture, good composition. BTW: the 'snow hills' in the background are rather mountains, I presume. -- MJJR (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yerpo (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Lycaon. My first impression is "Are those roofs really curved?", rather than "what a beautiful/interesting scene." I know it's easy to criticize; I don't have to go out and make a better picture. Sorry. Downtowngal (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI agree with Lycaon--Tired time (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for the same reason. -- H005 (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Stiftskirche St.Gallen.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 15:53:12
The Abbey of St. Gall

  • Info: created by Petar Marjanovic - uploaded by Ikiwaner - nominated by MadGeographer -- MadGeographer (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MadGeographer (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilted --ianaré (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good motive, but mean quality and tilted --kaʁstn 19:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good motive --Marten253 (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Avala (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilted, perspective, otherwise good --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is either tilted (as above) or just needs a good distortion correction. I'm too lazy to figure out which it is, but if it were fixed I might be able to support. -- Ram-Man 01:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice shoot, but poor quality Wladyslaw (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Pudelek (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Greina.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 15:46:37
Passo Greina, Switzerland

  • Info: created by Tici23 - uploaded by Tici23 - nominated by MadGeographer -- MadGeographer (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MadGeographer (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support No bad, but Question: what's this point top right? --kaʁstn 19:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots, noise and vignetting. Lycaon (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Just found my new wallpaper. --Sushiflinger (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice landscape, I agree. The Vindictive (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would have problems voting for this image as a QI due to serious vignetting issues. So is it valuable enough for FP? Not to me.
  •  Oppose I like it and would consider supporting, but not while there are dust spots that should be cloned out. Maedin\talk 11:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:London Victoria Station by Toni Frissell 1951.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 08:06:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by American photographer Toni Frissell - uploaded by User:Mu - nominated by User:Aylaross -- Aylaross (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Aylaross (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much dust spots and fibers/hairs and annoying color tint. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support At the resolution you could make a nice big print and the dust spots would be barely noticeable. There is some posterization but I don't mind as it's a quite beautiful picture. --Calibas (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Strong support, if there is such a thing here.;) MartinD (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support great composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Avala (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Simpledot (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Aesthetically fine, very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Daniel78 on the technical points. Maedin\talk 12:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Daniel78. Lycaon (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - weak quality, not special enough aesthetically. Downtowngal (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe it's not perfect technically, but aesthetic impressiveness overcompensate that--Tired time (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. It doesn't have just a little posterisation, it has extreme posterisation. Probably as a result of a poor scan or poor processing. Diliff (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Daniel and David   • Richard • [®] • 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ambigram - Muhammad and Ali2.svg

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 18:25:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: original image created by Juzer; vectorized by: Gothika - uploaded by Gothika - nominated by Gothika -- Gothika (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Gothika (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I tried too create a vector myself some time ago. --Muhammad (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Ambigrams are fascinating and I'd gladly support this one if it weren't for the kitschy border and background colour. Also, the border should be symmetrical in respect to a horizontal axis. Finally why is the text (apparently) rotated ccw? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This "kitschy" border is an arabesque, an element of Islamic art.--Gothika (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Would anyone object if I move this from candidates for removal to current candidates? ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done Ahh, it was already listed here too :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:AUS Student Center.JPG

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 18:17:36
Student Center of Sharjah

  • Info: created by User:BDS2006 - uploaded by Gikü - nominated by User:Gikü -- Gikü (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Gikü (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Tired time (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very noisy --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Overprocessed, way too sharp and so. →Diti the penguin — 23:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose confusing (with the black line in the middle) and bad quality --kaʁstn 06:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is far too low. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality. —kallerna™ 14:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Could be a good example of overprocessing, though. --Yerpo (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, sorry. It's the second time I nominate a picture on FP and the verdict is the same :D Will be more attentive in future. --Gikü (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Leucanthemum vulgare Kaldari.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 17:12:27
Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare)

  • Info: created by Kaldari - uploaded by Kaldari - nominated by Kaldari -- Kaldari (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kaldari (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too ordinary, no wow--Tired time (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Weak support: Good photo, but the black background is very unnatural --kaʁstn 06:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The current FP (Disclosure: My image) for this species is superior mainly due to better white petal detail (from the lighting choice) and slightly higher resolution. -- Ram-Man 00:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have to agree that the black background is detracting from the image. Maedin\talk 08:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ram-Man --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Splash 2 color.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 12:42:55
Watersplash

  • Info: created by Pro2 - uploaded by Pro2 - nominated by Pro2 -- Pro2 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Pro2 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Supportnot bad --kaʁstn 12:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment This one is already featured. —kallerna™ 13:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lošmi (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Rastrojo (D•ES) 14:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, there's a similar FP already, but this has color the other one lacks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kallerna. This is the absolutely standard subject for macro photographers (Flickr has 33.849 of it), for that I expect a more aesthtical approach to make it somehow special regarding the subject. What I don't like the most is the plastic bowl with the handholds and the cramped composition as well the tight crop (top + right side). Rudimentally good in technical terms but not exceptional in an aesthetical respectively compositional manner.   • Richard • [®] • 23:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Value? --Ernie (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ack Richard --che 09:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Richard said what I meant. :) —kallerna™ 16:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I concur. Lycaon (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I've seen a lot of water drop images that blow me away, but this one lacks that wow. -- Ram-Man 00:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The handle is a turn off, and what Ram-Man said. Maedin\talk 16:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Richard--Tired time (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Great image. Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per others --ianaré (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:F5 tornado Elie Manitoba 2007.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 09:00:35
Category F5 tornado

  • Info: created by Justin1569 - uploaded by Gump Stump - nominated by Matasg -- Matasg 09:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Matasg 09:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite spectacular but not mitigated by bad quality and lots of noise (no pun intented). Lycaon (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • per Lyacon, but  Neutral --kaʁstn 10:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Per Lycaon. →Diti the penguin — 16:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support This is a life threatening situation, so I consider that as mitigating circumstance. --Lošmi (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Simpledot (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support as Lošmi --ianaré (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Marten253 (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Quality is not good enough, which doesn't take away the EV of the image. Try FPC in en:WP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Definitely has the WOW-factor, by far outweighing any technical flaws (not that I see any, actually). MartinD (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overburnt, noisy, dark on some areas. —kallerna™ 14:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Impressive quality given the circumstances. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)