Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2012

File:Wheat close-up.JPG, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2012 at 17:36:50

Info Unattractive composition (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. --Cayambe (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Katarighe (Talk) 12:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist unattractive everything imo! Huge "no-wow". --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Renfe Civia.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 14:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by HernandoJoseAJ - uploaded by HernandoJoseAJ - nominated by HernandoJoseAJ -- HernandoJoseAJ (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HernandoJoseAJ (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral NIce and useful, but missing that extra something. Little detail overall for FP imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Tomer T (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eiffel Tower and Pont Alexandre III at night.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2012 at 21:54:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Getfunky Paris (Flickr) - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality, and a lovely athmosphere. - A.Savin 22:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Love it! Awesome quality and atmosphere. A pity those ships passed by. Also big CAs. --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per A.Savin. Tomer T (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 12:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – A brilliant panorama, very evocative: the color and composition transcend any loss of detail. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose I trully LOVE the picture, but I think is a copyvio. The lights of Eiffel Tower aren't free and I don't think they are "de minimus" here. If I'm mistaken, please let me know and I will change my vote.Béria Lima ^msg 20:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is beautiful, but I do share Beria's concerns. I have nominated it for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lights of the boats are ruining this very interesting picture (I don't like the fact they are cut at half of the picture). However regarding the Eiffel tower lightning, I believe the Eiffel tower would be de minimis if there was a copyright problem, but it's not even sure. For now most of the Eiffel tower picture by night have been restored on Commons. What do we know ?:
1. SETE has registered industrial property of the eiffel tower (mark) and the lightning system, but the day we will want to reproduce such lightning system for an Wiki monument we will pay a licence for sure, but that's not the point here.
2. The SETE won a court case on which they base their arugmentation. However this only court case was about a specific dynamic lightning show and not the regular lights of the tower.
3. So either we invent a jurisprudence here and delete everything, either we wait a judge to create a case law for this.
You can take a look at Category:France FOP cases/kept or this previous FPC Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reflet-tour-Eifel-Paris-Luc-Viatour.jpg --PierreSelim (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The graceful arc of the unseen ships is a key element of this picture's rich impressionism, and I don't think it would be nearly as interesting without them. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I dislike the "unseen ships", I see a lot of CA (pillars of the statues at right), and the gildened statues at right are completely unsharp, for instance. There is a slight perpsective distorsion of the left pillars of the Bridge, too.--Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --User:Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 9:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Support Agree with SteveStrummer about "the graceful arc". -- Achird (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:King's Cross Western Concourse.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2012 at 22:28:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the newly opened western concourse for Kings Cross station in London. See page description for more details. It was taken with a fisheye lens that has a stereographic projection, which causes a little distortion. This might upset those who like their lines straight and perpendicular :-). However, the advantage is the ability to capture a full-visual-field scene with one shot. I hope you enjoy the architecture and the rush-hour scene. Can you find Platform 9¾ without reading the description page?-- Colin (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess the kid isn't a wizard. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Amazing! stunning shot. I really don't mind the distortions. Makes me want to visit the place. --201.208.169.81 04:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please sign in to vote. Tomer T (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support nice and impressive scenery, and I liked the Harry Potter fan :) A shame on the distortions and on some unsharpness. Tomer T (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Please count the people mit a smartphone in the hand ;-) -- -donald- (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 12:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry no. For my taste, the left part is too distorded, unsharp, with aberrations of perspective and overexposition of the screen (JCDecaux), etc. Il like the roof effect though.--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jebulon. I've uploaded a new version where the JCDecaux sign has been recovered. Amazing what Lightroom can extract from a RAW file! "Your Fidelity ISA. Get it before it's gone." OK, you can't read the small print on the advert so don't blame me if you make an unwise financial decision after looking at this picture :-). Colin (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin, thanks for improvements. However, I cannot support cause my brain is not able to understand deformed panorama- or fish-eyed pictures. I need to see things as they look in real and in this case, I don't. Absolutely personal matter of taste, sorry again.--Jebulon (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A.Savin 11:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was there the day before you, but didn't have a fisheye lens. Lovely place. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --User:Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 9:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Weak support per Tomer T Cathy Richards (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:New Jersey Skyline from Battery Park NY.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2012 at 02:42:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Paolo Costa (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp enough.--Claus (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Claus, boring composition and too much water --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fighting Hippos - Adelaide Zoo.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2012 at 18:27:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Peripitus - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive action shot. –Makele-90 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SJ + 04:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support scary --Martin Kraft (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Asymmetric crop. Not so much action. Please note, that only one hippo has the mouth open and the teeth are visible. The other hippo (with half head) has the mouth closed. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose impressive animals, but the crop on the right I find too tight, with one of the hippo's chopped. --ELEKHH^T 20:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ELEKHH.--Claus (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2012

(UTC)

Oppose Nice but bad crop.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glacial iceberg in Argentina.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2012 at 14:09:27

Info Too ordinary shot, boring composition (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Katarighe (Talk) 13:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist ...also a tilted horizon. This could be corrected but why is it for a FP anyway? --Ximonic (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goetheanum im Winter von Osten4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2012 at 15:21:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough wow for me. The lighting is also not very attractive. Tomer T (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice Atmosphere but a quite ordinary composition and to many disturbing elements in the foreground. A good image, but not an excellent one --Martin Kraft (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mal wieder eine typische Rachestimme eines nicht sachlich argumentierenden Zeitgenossen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jan Mikolaj Kalinski.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2012 at 23:01:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jan Szukalski - uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special to me. Tomer T (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality image. Colin (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Augsburg Cathedral, Andlau.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2012 at 08:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Schnobby (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice image, but strong colour noise (esp. in the darker parts) and a slight yellow cast. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noise. Tomer T (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Schnobby (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trevarno, pavo cristatus06.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2012 at 08:14:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Schnobby (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the picture and the detail but it is let down by heavy noise / JPG artefacts. Colin (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Schnobby (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SSG Desiree Palacios makes final settings on her camera before a sortie in a F-16D Fighting Falcon.jpg

File:Balthazar Castiglione, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2012 at 23:53:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Raphael - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Claus
Support -- Claus (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 80 pin sharp MegaPixles?! Wow! -- Martin Kraft (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- taken by a bot...--Jebulon (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful. Colin (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Byzantine - Box with Scenes from the Fall of Adam and Eve and the Story of Joseph - Walters 71295 - Three Quarter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2012 at 13:14:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Walters Art Museum - uploaded by (cooperation project) bot - nominated by Slick -- Slick (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slick (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BastienM (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not seeing anything featurable here. It isn't of "Of high artistic merit" because the description says it is a mass-produced item (albeit an old one). The photograph, while technically fine, is seriously let down by its barely more than 2MP dimensions. This restricts one's ability to examine the engravings. Colin (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exactly per Colin. I share the same opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph Mallord William Turner - The Sun of Venice Going to Sea - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2012 at 23:53:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Joseph Mallord William Turner - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Claus
Support -- Claus (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colin (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Queens Window Saint Hilarion Kalesi.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2012 at 13:24:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ira Goldstein - uploaded by Ira Goldstein - nominated by Ira Goldstein -- Igoldste (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Igoldste (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition generates no wow for me, tightly cropped on the top. Tomer T (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To ordinary composition for FI --Martin Kraft (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salzburg Fountain Plaza 2007.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2012 at 01:26:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Egunt07 - uploaded by Egunt07 - nominated by Egunt07 -- Egunt07 (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Egunt07 (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh shadows is not at all expected from a FP candidate. Dipankan001 (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad crop, need e perspective corection, harh shadows. Sorry it isn't an FP image for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that the shadows give the photo great depth perception and do not detract. --Egunt07 (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 15:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --User:Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 9:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turkish Stars 2217.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2012 at 00:05:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Info IMO the image could be slightly sharpend --Martin Kraft (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one because the picture area has been used more effectively. --Ximonic (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support (but I prefer the second version) --PierreSelim (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info all by Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To much space on the left and richt. The other one is better

Support Alright now, but I somehow still prefer the other one --Martin Kraft (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This picture has a better sharpness though. I think a square shaped crop would go better with this one. --Ximonic (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Following your suggestions I have uploaded a squarier crop. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really prefer this one it seems to have a higher educational value to illustrate what looks to be a coordinated turn. --PierreSelim (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO, it is not an alternative version, but another picture...--Jebulon (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But they are too similiar for both to be featured. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It could be discussed because confusing, IMO. And in this case, you have three active noms for now in this page...--Jebulon (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What do you mean? This here is one, and the other is the girl with the camera. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that if I think this one is another picture and not an alternative version, then you have three active noms. But no matter. All the three pictures are very nice however, and deserve the label.--Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, if you put it that way... But my intention from the very beginning was that out of these two only one should be featured. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it is quite good with this kind of a crop. --Ximonic (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prefer this turn. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --User:Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 9:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Support better than the other. --SJ + 04:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

The chosen alternative is: File:Türk Yıldızları 2210.JPG

File:Kryžių kalnas (Góra Krzyży).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2012 at 11:52:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Martin Kraft (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. Links to the related articles in english and french provided in the file description page.--Jebulon (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Also cool. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Did I see this in a James Bond film? No, I think it was a Wallander film --Schnobby (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Excellent clarity for such a busy picture. Nicely done! SteveStrummer (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 21:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achird (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality. Impressive shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Baeotus aeilus MHNT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2012 at 21:55:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totodu74 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! Tomer T (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good job --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I expect butterflies to be beautiful but I am in awe of the ventral/dorsal dichotomy of colouration. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colin (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Maesteg (Ewenny Road) railway station MMB 07 150208.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2012 at 20:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and nominated by mattbuck, uploaded by mattbuck via flickr2commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -mattbuck (Talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not in focus, no clear subject, no "wow!". --MAURILBERT (discuter) 11:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What's the subject ??? --BastienM (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is nice, but the lighting is bad, most of the frame is in shadow. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but is this really a Quality Image? I doubt it. This is sadly not one of Mattbuck's better images. -- Achird (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above--David საქართველო 12:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support focus is on train and station platform, I like the composition --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 21:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Selsley Church.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2012 at 08:10:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Saffron Blaze - uploaded by Saffron Blaze - nominated by Saffron Blaze -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the way you include the beautiful environment. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice dynamic and very good embedding of the foreground in this wide angle view --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Paolo Costa (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much grass in the foreground, too low church. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's the decision of the photographer how many church and how many grassland he shows us,there is no disqualification for the aesthetic --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of understand his point. I will add a close up version to this one so people can get the detail as well as the setting, as both are not possible in one picture. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Your Liberty Bond will help stop this Crisco restoration and colours.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2012 at 06:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fernando Amorsolo - restored by Crisco 1492 - uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Crisco 1492 -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --User:Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 9:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment In the information I miss the date the poster is made. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 21:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 11:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duntisbourne Leer Ford 2011.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2012 at 12:36:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Saffron Blaze -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. Tomer T (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a little bit of red/green CA on the borders between shadow and sunlight. Could you correct this? Colin (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, Done I thought that was moss or algae! Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, that's fixed it. I see this version is less vivid and the better for it as the sky and greens look more natural. Also a bit more shadow detail too. Colin (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Syncerus caffer african buffalo skull MNHN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2012 at 15:45:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cool. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Saffron Blaze. Kleuske (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 17:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good job --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totodu74 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent travail. --Cayambe (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achird (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colin (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 11:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Columbia Supercomputer - NASA Advanced Supercomputing Facility.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2012 at 12:53:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Trower, NASA - uploaded by Epolk - nominated by P0lyzoarium -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distortion, noise and chromatic aberrations--Miguel Bugallo 13:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose massive distortion. Tomer T (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The distortion adds drama but quite unnecessay for an encyclopedia. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overly distorted --NJR_ZA (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 11:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: per above. Tomer T (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Required existence mutually (92395757).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2012 at 14:47:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by su neko - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by ‏P0lyzoarium -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is below the size requirements. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trier Liebfrauen BW 2012-03-26 16-18-15.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2012 at 12:35:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I think the crop may be a little too tight. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I concur. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is OK Albertus teolog (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop is good IMO, but the upper area is unsharp and too many shadows --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh lighting Colin (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others--Miguel Bugallo 23:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anseremme Marina R01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2012 at 15:32:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by MJJR - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The landscape is rather lovely, but the boats are rather ugly. Colin (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's ugly about boats? Tomer T (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the scene, but the image quality is not the best. Sky is washed out and the boats, being the main subject, is not very sharp. --NJR_ZA (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aveiro March 2012-10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2012 at 13:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Our Lady of Piety, upholstered wood, by unknown Portuguese artist of the 18th century. Museum of Aveiro, Portugal. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Love the detail. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could support, but I have a doubt about the white balance. Seems a bit red/magenta to me, especially the background.--Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- I have desaturated and increased the color temperature a bit. But white on the backgroung is not possible without burning it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background looks a bit red to me too. But FP imho. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportPer Berthold Werner. A small lateral part of the pedestal is really white, so the balance is probably good. Nice details, nice image, seasonal, interesting topic and good work of art. Deserves the label IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no WOW factor to me. Just an average image with average technical quality (hardly QI). -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not incredible quality. As NorbertNagel--Miguel Bugallo 23:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 11:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 00:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Costiera Amalfitana - Italia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2012 at 14:14:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Paolo Costa (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive composition. Tomer T (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I don't like the crop on the top left. Jkadavoor (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 20:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colin (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Filigree and Shadow.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2012 at 13:59:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA, uploaded and nominated by Dipankan001 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support High educational value, high resolution (6000*6000 pixels) -- Dipankan001 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very impressive, but what is the black area on the top left? (see annotations) Tomer T (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's its cientific name? Cygnus Loop, Veil Nebula, Cygnus Loop Nebula? I think it should be renamed. --Kadellar (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's scientific name is Cygnus Loop, adding the word "nebula". @TomerT - This is space photography. Everything is not in our hands. And for a little empty space, you're gonna dismiss this beautiful picture from FP? Just can't believe it..... (No offend to you, Tomer T) Dipankan001 (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very nice picture, but because of the empty black area, that Tomer T spotted, it cannot be featured. It also needs to be renamed to something more scientific. -- Achird (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done It's renamed to a scientific name. Dipankan001 (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is how you take space pictures. Conf. File:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I opposed that for the same reason, and it was not featured here. So I Oppose this. We have many featured space pictures which managed to point the telescope in enough places to make an aesthetically pleasing image. --99of9 (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was done due to incomplete image, the black boxes at the top right. Are you trying to say that we should not accept space pictures as FP? They are the original beautiful one's capturing almost 40% of the featured images in Commons. Dipankan001 (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - This one is incomplete too, that's the point. See the image annotation. Of course we feature lots of good (complete) space pics. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by David1010 (talk • contribs)
Comment - Perhaps the black area could be cropped out, or declared a supermassive black hole. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am having a bit of problem with my image editing software, can anybody crop it please? Dipankan001 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the "black hole" area. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crop[edit]

I have uploaded a crop. Unlike the original, this one has suitable categories and whatnot.

Support -mattbuck (Talk) 00:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Dipankan001 (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

The chosen alternative is: File:Ultraviolet image of the Cygnus Loop Nebula crop.jpg

File:Graureiher Ardea cinerea.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2012 at 19:29:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Overexposed, needs adjustment. –Makele-90 (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Paolo Costa (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 11:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 00:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Jubilee Campus MMB K7 Business School North, The Exchange and Djanogly LRC.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2012 at 17:17:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and nominated by mattbuck - uploaded by mattbuck using flickr2commons. -- -mattbuck (Talk) 17:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -mattbuck (Talk) 17:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supportthe atmosphere is captured well --Ralf Roleček 06:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice view and composition but too dark IMO, the same picture a few minutes earlier would advance the light impression --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 12:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 00:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rooster-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2012 at 21:34:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Žiga - uploaded by Žiga - nominated by Žiga -- Žiga (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Žiga (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow. Tomer T (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What breed is it? -- Achird (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schwörstadt - Katholische Kirche5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2012 at 09:08:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 10:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely lit, good detail. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted (not the ceiling, but the object itself)--Jebulon (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Felix König ✉ 11:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Tacking Point Lighthouse qtl1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2012 at 18:44:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Tacking Point Lighthouse, third oldest lighthouse of Australia. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --User:Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 9:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure about the centered composition and the somewhat-disturbing sand on the foreground. I added an alternative crop below. Tomer T (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Kraft (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it, but I think it needs sharpening. Possibly also a little tilted? Unsure about that. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one. --Moonik (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Uploaded and nominated by Tomer T (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SJ + 04:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the original is better -- Martin Kraft (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - crop is too tight. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In what side? Tomer T (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Generally really, the original gives more of a sense of space. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

The chosen alternative is: File:Tacking Point Lighthouse qtl1.jpg

File:The Mummy 1932 film poster.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2012 at 23:35:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karoly Grosz - uploaded by Crisco 1492 - slightly retouched by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Crisco 1492 -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- deja vu. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Kraft (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colin (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 00:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Česky Krumlov 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2012 at 13:11:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mihael Grmek - uploaded by Mihael Grmek - nominated by Mihael Grmek -- Mihael Grmek (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mihael Grmek (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The sky makes a completely irrelevant contribution to an otherwise interesting image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Cropped the image. I think it does look better now. TNX -- Mihael Grmek (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support something a bit different. Tomer T (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Now wow factor to me. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't like the left hand side framing. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 12:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 00:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-02-15-euronews-by-RalfR-61.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2012 at 14:22:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Philippe Cayla, CEO of TV "euronews" since 2003

Info all by Ralf Roleček
Oppose "eur" covered. --ELEKHH^T 20:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportUser:Andrew J.Kurbiko2:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose – Obscured logo; red cast overall. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 21:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-06-23-erck-rickmers-by-RalfR-5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2012 at 09:37:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me Ralf Roleček
Support good portrait. Tomer T (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeUser:Andrew J.Kurbiko2:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Question why?--Martin Kraft (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question why? --mathias K 14:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info Because it meets the guidelines and is just a good portrait ;)

I raised that question in the vote bevor, because IMHO it's just a matter of fairness, to give reasons when you decline somebody else's work or nomination. --Martin Kraft (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per TomerT, but I'd prefer it scaled down a bit. - A.Savin 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good pose --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacking sharpness, visible highlights, unnecessary use of ISO 200, no wow. (compare: same camera model, same light setup, same location, different lense: File:Kersten Artus IMG 6154 edit.jpg) Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With 21MP resolution, unsharpness in full view almost doesn't matter. - A.Savin 18:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Katarighe (Talk) 21:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Savin Jkadavoor (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Peter Weis--Miguel Bugallo 13:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support still to sharp for me, but good enough for FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Allium ursinum (Bärlauch) - Blüte.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2012 at 11:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ra'ike - uploaded by Ra'ike - nominated by Ra'ike -- Ra'ike T C 11:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ra'ike T C 11:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much noise and CAs--Miguel Bugallo 13:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't quite make it over the flower bar... a bit soft, a few too many blown highlights, CA visible at screen res. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NGC 2683 Spiral galaxy.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2012 at 06:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA, uploaded and nominated by Dipankan001 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Georgez (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Paternoster Square, London.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2012 at 07:40:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Paternoster Square in London, view from St. Paul's Cathedral. Created, uploaded and nominated by Eluveitie (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Support -- Eluveitie (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice symmetric shot, but what is the flare on the bottom left corner? Tomer T (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, I'll try to remove it. --Eluveitie (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know how to remove it, so I've cut it. --Eluveitie (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support some minor technical flaws, but big wow. I support. Tomer T (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition: the framing is not optimal, with building parts hanging in and the circular motive on the pavement being chopped. Would also be better to have the central column vertical to give it a sense of stability. Better composition is possible. --ELEKHH^T 20:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ELEKHH.--Claus (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tomer Jkadavoor (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Elekhh--David საქართველო 12:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 11:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ypthima baldus UN by Kadavoor.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2012 at 07:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Common Fivering Ypthima baldus is a species of Satyrinae butterfly found in Asia. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Jkadavoor -- Jkadavoor (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bottom of wing obscured. We have some amazing butterflies - the standard is so high that one flaw is enough to make me oppose. Nice picture though. --99of9 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to keep the camera inline with the cross-section of the horizontal and vertical centerlines of the subject while capturing a butterfly in closed wing posture. I can possibly include the bottom part of the wing in an inclined angle of view but think it is not beautiful due to a lot of reasons. So I’m on my knees with elbows on the ground in most of these shots; sometimes camera simply rests on the ground. :) Not arguing; just explaining why I prefer this angle of view. Jkadavoor (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Agree with 99of9, the standard is pretty high. Also I don't like the square framing. But still a good picture, I consider very valuable all pictures of identified animals which have good detail, light and sharpness. This is a good one, plus, it is in the wild.--Paolo Costa (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Paolo Costa makes a good case for this one and I don't mind the square framing. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Paolo Costa -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 12:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 00:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Burj Khalifa 2012.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2012 at 17:43:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Сергей Сафонов - uploaded by Сергей Сафонов - nominated by Сергей Сафонов -- Сергей Сафонов (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Сергей Сафонов (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Copyright problems - A.Savin 18:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paxmal pond.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2012 at 08:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by marfis75 - uploaded by Centovalli - nominated by Centovalli -- Centovalli (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Centovalli (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: It is way below the 2MP resolution. Dipankan001 (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cervus elaphus Luc Viatour 5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2012 at 03:22:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Luc Viatour, nominated by Yann (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge wow, great quality. Yann (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support really good action foto :-) -- Ra'ike T C 06:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- But without repeating what I said on QI. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 12:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Totodu74 (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 18:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent action shot --NJR_ZA (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 11:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow--H. Krisp (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a Viatour's fan--Citron (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Vassil (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support big wow.--Claus (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support fantastic--David საქართველო 12:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Papilio demoleus ALT by kadavoor.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2012 at 21:58:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Jkadavoor - nominated by Jovianeye -- Jovian Eye _storm 21:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jovian Eye _storm 21:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Tomer T (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great --Martin Kraft (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNice--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 03:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, Jovianeye. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful --Sreejith K (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support jetzt passt's --Böhringer (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 11:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 18:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per English Wikipedia Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 11:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice--H. Krisp (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done --Citron (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS II USM without hood.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2012 at 15:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by A.Savin 15:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's weird that no one supported yet, it is a very good picture. But even more weird are the parameters, with f/29 and speed 30 secs!!! what? --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was deliberately indeed - maximum DoF, minimum noise. - A.Savin 19:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Katarighe (Talk) 21:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have this feeling that the image or the object is a little bit tilted leftwards. --Ximonic (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had checked it in full view while editing; sometimes there coulkd be an optical illusion on tilt. - A.Savin 19:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support The object is actually tilted a half degree leftwards, but to me it doesn't matter. -- Achird (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The unusual angle of view lacks the dynamism you get from an angled pose, and it is upside-down for being able to read the writing. Colin (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per colin, and the lens isn't clean. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition for me. For a long item is a diagonal composition a better one. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 18:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Óðinn (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Really good photo. Alex Florstein (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, usefull, a good photo. --Ralf Roleček 20:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition IMO.--Claus (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 05:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info I just created a diagonal version of this image (acting on Alchemist-hp's suggestion) und removed some dust (for JJ Harrison). But I doubt that this version better fits the needs of the articles, the image is used in. --Martin Kraft (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A.Savin 18:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS II USM without hood.jpg

File:MAP Expo Empereur Ojin Poupée 03 01 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2012 at 10:58:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Vassil - nominated by Paris 16
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow! Jkadavoor (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 21:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail, impressive clothing and equipment. --Cayambe (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't think the black background was done quite well enough, but otherwise it's pretty good. --99of9 (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - grey surface is present in the background, too distracting for me. Maybe QI, interesting object. --Claritas (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded a new version.--Paris 16 (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot,Paris 16. --Vassil (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Кривой-Рог-украина-Ночной-город-зима-95784.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2012 at 09:47:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Christmas Lights near Kryvyy Rih City Hall, 2011 Christmas season

Support --User:Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 9:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose For me it's a good image, but only because of the noise in this image I have to oppose. Dipankan001 (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support прекрасный --Ralf Roleček 06:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it needs to be tilted a bit clockwise. Then maybe crop out some of the sky. It's certainly very pretty. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 21:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Кривой-Рог-украина-часы-цветочные-часы-95804.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2012 at 09:47:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The biggest flower clock in Europe. Kryvyy Rih, Ukraine

Support --User:Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 9:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Support--David საქართველო 12:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think the perspective on the road, making it seem crowned, is rather unfortunate. Plus the overexposure. Nice idea, but not quite there. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cuban musician in Trinidad.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2012 at 18:55:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lucash - uploaded by Lucash - nominated by Lucash -- Lucash (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lucash (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the lower crop is not quite right, it should be just below the elbow to include the whole playing arm. --99of9 (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 11:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 18:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9.--Claus (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Costamula de sot Urtijëi.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2012 at 22:30:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice atmosphere -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's too white, but nice. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 20:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 06:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice house, nice atmosphere, but the crop is too tight.--Claus (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:LG 시네마 3D TV 새 모델 ‘소녀시대’ 영입.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2012 at 03:24:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by LG전자 - uploaded by Puramyun31 - nominated by me -- Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality, but no "WOW" effect for me. Dipankan001 (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfectly sharp, nice postures, useful shot of a prominent band. Tomer T (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well executed group shot. Full of character. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A featured picture from Asia, I like that.--Claus (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice composition, but insufficient use of the camera's native resolution due to either cropping or downsampling. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO it doesn't make any difference, whether or not an image has been downsampled or deliveres the highest possible quality a Camera ist capable of. In the end every image stands for its one, regardless wich camera or postprocessing it has gone through. --Martin Kraft (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it does. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should check the guidelines then ;) --Martin Kraft (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should stop telling people what to do. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice composition, but insufficient use of the camera's native resolution due to either cropping or downsampling isn't important. Our rule is minimum 2MP not maximum camera resolution. Regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some strange "stripes" in the colors of the background. Otherwise good. I'll promote if corrected. Agree with Alchemist-hp moreover.--Jebulon (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super cute girls, and don't care about size. When people give things away for free, we shouldn't ask for more... - Benh (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality image, sharp. Tomtomn00 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though it may be a downsampled one as it comes from LG Electronics's flickr account. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnatural color of the skin: white balance. The background at left zone is overexposed--Miguel Bugallo 13:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator at the English Wikipedia Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninspiring publicity shot. Gamaliel (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jovian Eye _storm 12:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 06:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:La mort Saint-Innocent Louvre R.F.2625.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2012 at 09:30:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Anonymous - photographied, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Death. Anonymous alabaster statue. Ca.1530. Louvre Museum. Please see file description page for more informations.-- Jebulon (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 11:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- What does the scroll say? Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is described as a "shield". You may find the whole text in the file description page. It is old French. It means (almost): How strong you may be, remember I'll come, to provide something to eat to the worms. Pray God for the deads.--Jebulon (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, interesting. Jkadavoor (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scary, but FP. Yann (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. But the image description could be a bit more detailed. --High Contrast (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- aaaargh ! Thanks for support, but please have a look to the file description page... Impossible to give more informations !! You know what ? It should be a good thing if all the file description pages of all the here nominated FP were so detailed, in two languages furthermore, with interlingual templates and so on !!--Jebulon (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kjetil_r 20:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann.--Claus (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 05:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, educational and WOW factor. FP for me. --NJR_ZA (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Notre-Dame Rzygacze.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2012 at 11:19:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special--David საქართველო 12:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sign Brodway crossing Wall Street.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2012 at 11:05:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Agamitsudo - uploaded by Agamitsudo - nominated by Agamitsudo -- Agamitsudo (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agamitsudo (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I thought i was seeing jagged lines around the letters and at the edge of the sign. Looking at the file history, i'd say the picture's size have been blown, causing artifacts. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teneriffa Gesteinsschichten.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2012 at 13:16:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CA (the white painted lines on the ground). But very impressive and good. I'll support when/if corrected.--Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Are you sure concerning CA? I hardly see anything CA-like on my monitor. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jebulon is right, there are really well-visible CA esp. in the bottom left corner. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Katarighe (Talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the chromatic aberration in the bottom left part of the picture since it is just appearing in the uninteresting foreground in the left corner. -- Achird (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~I'd like to see the CA corrected since it is visible even at medium res but overall~~ this is a very interesting shot. My mind reacts strongly to the effect of the horizon and the land being in such discord. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to reduce the CAs but somehow it seems that the image did not update(?) --Ximonic (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your new version, very good, the image looks much better now. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jkadavoor (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and with encyclopaedic value. --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support No more CA indeed. I support.--Jebulon (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weird and wonderful. Colin (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info geo code added now --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kind of pictures which makes you want to look at the caption, which is a bit disappointing in that regard, I wish we'd know more about the different layers. Also would like to know what is leaning, the road or the layers ? Seems to be the road, if my understanding of Google Map 8 bit version is right. - Benh (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition -- MJJR (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that other perspective is possible. The road is not interesting. Is the road wov?--Miguel Bugallo 00:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the road adds to the photo. It provides scale to the image without being out of place. A photo of just the rock strata will be less useful without some artificial object of know size included. --NJR_ZA (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This depicted structure is known as "La Tarta". It shows only a small part of the whole, another view of the same place which shows more layers is here [1]. --Llez (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Wimereux France Beach.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2012 at 05:33:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Egunt07 - uploaded by Egunt07 - nominated by Egunt07 -- Egunt07 (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Egunt07 (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only a holiday-snapshot. Too dark, bad perspective. -- -donald- (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 11:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. Gamaliel (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark, too unfavorable light, too much sky, too much beach. A simply crop and you get a better image. But still not good enough for an FP image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paisaje en el valle de Tehuacán.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2012 at 23:49:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noyolcont - uploaded by Noyolcont - nominated by Noyolcont -- Noyolcont (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noyolcont (talk)17:50 30 Marzo 2012
Oppose Quality is average, and no wow. Yann (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the mountain/mountain. But the trees are a little random and the foreground needs to be in focus too for this to work. Pick a smaller aperture next time. Colin (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - really nice composition, but the focus is awkward. --Claritas (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Papio hamadryas Cologne Zoo.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2012 at 16:14:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created &- uploaded by Till.niermann - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! Daddy, mum, and the kids!... Yann (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice--H. Krisp (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing --Citron (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! Kleuske (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice composition. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow great Photo--David საქართველო 12:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Žiga (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Personality rights ? Parental agreement ? lol... Great picture ! I like the very little cute one very much--Jebulon (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 14:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Monkey see, monkey do. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 05:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful capture, excellent composition and good quality! Freedom to share (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Aveiro March 2012-1a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2012 at 12:18:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The dead Christ with John the Evangelist, the Virgin and Mary Magdalene. Unknown Spanish master of the 18th century, a nice example of Tenebrism. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John the Baptist? His decapitation was long before this scene. This should be John the Apostle. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, though anacronic representations were not rare in religious paintings! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ 84.111.217.113 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP vote --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp --Claus (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - you've done a good job considering the circumstances of the shot, but this doesn't come close to professional art photography, of which we've got a fair amount of here. QI, yes, FP no. --Claritas (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cherry blossoms in Vancouver 3 crop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2012 at 06:44:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by InverseHypercube - uploaded by InverseHypercube - nominated by InverseHypercube -- InverseHypercube 06:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- InverseHypercube 06:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but background is distracting. Maybe it can be more blurred? Tomer T (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad background. -- -donald- (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 00:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chris Martin-220b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2012 at 00:14:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Steve Ullathorne - uploaded by Russellgarnett - nominated by A Thousand Doors -- A Thousand Doors (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A Thousand Doors (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not impressive to me: too tight crop--Miguel Bugallo 11:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Miguel. ■ MMXX ^talk 18:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportUser:Andrew J.Kurbiko

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Escalier monumental Neue Burg Vienne.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2012 at 17:45:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Monumental stairs of the "Neue Burg", built in 1913, one of the building of the palace complex of the Hofburg, Vienna, Austria.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Pudelek (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love this kind of architecture. Good quality, nice pic. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Gyrocopter Löchgau 2011.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2012 at 11:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Felix König ✉ 11:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Felix König ✉ 11:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the cut of the plane in the left and the overlaps of the propellor with the tree tops is suboptimal --Martin Kraft (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin Kraft. --Kadellar (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't understand the color of the sky: Oversaturated? Perhaps yes because to me the greens are oversaturated--Miguel Bugallo 23:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition makes it fail as a featured picture. Both the plane tail on the left and the rotor being aligned exactly with the tree line in the back is problematic. A far better composition could easily have been achieved here --NJR_ZA (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Otherwise nice. -- -donald- (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pestsäule Baden 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2012 at 11:17:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Felix König ✉ 11:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Felix König ✉ 11:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 20:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit too much like a tourist snap. Plus the netting and pigeon defences spoil it. Colin (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't accept the judgement of the pidgeon defences as a valid argument. In fact, they are always on the column, they are not removable, so they have to be on the picture. -- Felix König ✉ 13:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know there's nothing you can do about it, but a featured picture of a monument shouldn't have something covering it that makes it unattractive. Colin (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tell this to the austrian authorities, as they put nets everywhere... see:1, 2, 3, 4. A pity for photographers...--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - An encyclopedic photo has to show the reality, and only with this net, the photo can show the reality... -- Felix König ✉ 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps wov, not to me. Noise in the sky. I can't read the text of the sculpture. A bit too much like a tourist snap.--Miguel Bugallo 23:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oversatured colors to me--Miguel Bugallo 23:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Point Arena Lighthouse.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2012 at 01:18:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but isn't it a bit tilted? Tomer T (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tomer, I've checked it twice – the horizon in the lower part of the image isn't tilted. Let me know if you want me to rotate it anyway. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support--David საქართველო 12:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment stürzendene Linien am Turm – der kippt deutlich als links innen weg. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Hast Du eine Idee, wie ich das am besten korrigieren kann? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 08:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Flag 12-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2012 at 17:17:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Senior Airman Brett Clashman - uploaded, nominated by me -- Morning Sunshine (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Morning Sunshine (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow. Tomer T (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture. Botend (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but just another military plane. Yann (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very nice and wov for me, but not good quality: too much noise and dark zones--Miguel Bugallo 13:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I always find it hard to oppose aircraft, I have to agree with Miguel on this one. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great picture but just a normal military aircraft Solar Police►Talk 15:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bugallo --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --David საქართველო 12:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special; tons of files of this camera angle and such average quality on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--SteGrifo27 (tell me) 19:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zoe Lyons Cigar Wink High Res.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2012 at 00:11:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Steve Ullathorne - uploaded by Russellgarnett - nominated by A Thousand Doors -- A Thousand Doors (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A Thousand Doors (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dr.Haus (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per English Wikipedia Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nothing special. Looks like an immature "Photomaton" identity picture to me.--Jebulon (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -stylistically appealing portrait. We don't have enough genuinely funny pictures of comedians. --Claritas (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Passerotto - Cervinia 2012.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2012 at 15:36:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Stefano Massa -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 15:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 15:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark to my taste. Also has a white spot. Tomer T (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Low quality, too dark, contre-jour. Yann (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think 'too dark' is a sufficient reason to FPX. For example, this one is a featured contre-jour photo. Quality is something else though. Tomer T (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the FPX tag if you support the nomination. Yann (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, see above. Tomer T (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Broadway Tower 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2012 at 12:51:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Saffron Blaze - uploaded by Saffron Blaze - nominated by Saffron Blaze -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment lots of dust spots in the sky and the south side of tower is a bit too shady to me. Nice composition and better than the successful present FP IMHO though. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Spots gone. Thanks. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (weak) Support. No problem! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. - A.Savin 16:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I prefer the minimalism (distracting trees and background) and saturation of the current FP. This one is still very nice though (and far bigger). Vignetting should be fixed. Filename too :) - Benh (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a tall step ladder with me just so I could get high enough to demonstrate why the Tower was placed where it is... the view. BTW, sorry about the file name, name is now correct. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I prefer the saturation of the current FP" o.O Really? That one is very obviously oversaturated (unrealistic)... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure but I can't help but preferring it... hope I have the right to ;), like the many people who promoted it POTY. We aren't on wikipedia FPC after all, are we ? - Benh (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Óðinn (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big wow, the place itself is WOW. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Pont des Invalides et Tour Eiffel - 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2012 at 11:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought that the illumination (lightning or light) of the Eiffel Tower has all rights reserved. Is it so?--Miguel Bugallo 11:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Special illumination (like a light and music show) is under copyright, but not ordinary lighting. See the first comments in this former FPC. --Kadellar (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Kadellar. And sorry, I have no experience in taking night shots. I hope that other users vote--Miguel Bugallo 13:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's OK ;) --Kadellar (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 19:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ponte Romano Okt 2011.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2012 at 08:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Centovalli - uploaded by Centovalli - nominated by Centovalli -- Centovalli (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Centovalli (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but overblown sky. -- -donald- (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overbrightened --High Contrast (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 13:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gulls on Morro Strand State Beach.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2012 at 12:49:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mike Baird - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The mood is extraordinary. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Saffron Blaze Cathy Richards (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 7 23:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Heron and small trout crop.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2012 at 00:07:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Canoe1967 - uploaded by Canoe1967 - nominated by Canoe1967 -- Canoe1967 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Canoe1967 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the Heron is very cute (well I like thoses birds) but the overall quality is too low for a FP (not even talking about birds which have a bar that is very high). --PierreSelim (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Channa micropeltes 2012 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2012 at 06:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Giant snakehead (Channa micropeltes)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated background, shadow is too prominent. Kleuske (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kleuske -- -donald- (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 11:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kleuske + too artifical looking Enviroment --Martin Kraft (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin Kraft Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Solar Police►Talk 11:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --David საქართველო 12:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin Kraft ■ MMXX ^talk 19:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 08:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kleuske and Martin Kraft --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cosmic Ornament.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2012 at 14:38:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - Cropped to remove watermark and colour contrast correction by Solar Police - uploaded by Solar Police - nominated by Solar Police -- Solar Police►Talk 14:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Solar Police►Talk 14:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 11:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems like a very low quality Tomer T (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 12:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 19:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nilgais fighting, Lakeshwari, Gwalior district, India.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2012 at 11:48:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Male fighting is a common behaviour of this species, yet this is the only picture on Commons. Yann (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive--Miguel Bugallo 13:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't mind captive shots but the barbed wire really puts me off as does the other stuff in the background. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Question What do you mean by "captive shots"? Yann (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appeared to me they were in a zoo or other such similar environment. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, this is not a zoo. They have been domesticated, but they are roaming freely, like most cows in India. Yann (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I changed my vote to neutral based on your info. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 11:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive.--Jebulon (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad background IMO. --Claus (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 08:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Papilio thoas thoas MHNT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2012 at 17:37:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 05:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 12:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support High Ev, correct picture. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Luxembourg City monument Guillaume II statue 2011.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2012 at 08:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info photo created, uploaded and nominated by Cayambe (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Guillaume II (1792-1849) in the centre of Luxembourg City, erected in 1884. For the entire monument see 'Other version' in the file description.

Support -- Cayambe (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 11:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 18:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --David საქართველო 12:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Strobilurus esculentus Fichten-Zapfenrübling pic2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2012 at 17:23:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 12:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot, high EV. Some weird areas due to noise reduction on the background maybe... --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Belle and Sebastian British Band.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2012 at 00:23:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Marisa Privitera - uploaded by Svencb - nominated by A Thousand Doors -- A Thousand Doors (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A Thousand Doors (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please fill up the description above. Yann (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Tomer T (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know, I like it, but it's a bit tightly cropped on the bottom. Tomer T (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 00:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite the not good crop, I do not see anything interesting for a FP. No WOW--Llorenzi (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - irritating crop on the bottom and left, which detracts from the composition. Would probably pass QI, technically fine. --Claritas (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Claritas and, frankly, a boring picture.... Kleuske (talk)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Los portadores de la antorcha.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2012 at 23:32:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ¡Si!--Jebulon (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 16:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Paolo Costa (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Perth CBD from Mill Point.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2012 at 03:57:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by me -- Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the ghost flag is a noticeable flaw in this otherwise excellent panorama. Perhaps, it should be fixed?.. Óðinn (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO this 'gost flag' isn't a flaw but a normal effekt of a long time exposure. --Martin Kraft (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support - alright, I'm convinced. Óðinn (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are minimal stitching issues, but all in all it's a great pano. - A.Savin 21:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 7 23:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support sharp (because of downscaling, no lense is this sharp), nice timing, good stitch as far as I can see. - Benh (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support-- Raghith 10:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zebrasoma veliferum Prague 2011 1.jpg

File:Horse at Water sculpture, Marble Arch, London.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2012 at 06:03:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Eluveitie (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eluveitie (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 00:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 10:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Tomer T (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baden bei Wien.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2012 at 10:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dmitry A. Mottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Average composition, and notable perspective distortions. - A.Savin 20:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Micro-CT Rope HighRes 2D Top 2050x2050.ogv, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2012 at 18:17:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by SecretDisc - uploaded by SecretDisc - nominated by SecretDisc -- SecretDisc (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SecretDisc (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 00:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing WOW --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for 3.9 µm spatial resolution maybe? This is nothing made up, this is real high-res CT data! SecretDisc (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I have the same machine, this topic is not interesting.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - from a material science perspective, it would be useful to know what sort of polymer the rope is actually made of. --Claritas (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Micro-CT Rope HighRes 3D.ogv, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2012 at 18:22:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by SecretDisc - uploaded by SecretDisc - nominated by SecretDisc -- SecretDisc (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SecretDisc (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 00:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing WOW --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ocypode cursor 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2012 at 17:52:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Gidip - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Botend (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 16:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets all criteria imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alborzagros (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support-- Raghith 10:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Trier Liebfrauen BW 2012-03-26 16-18-47.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2012 at 16:56:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - insufficiently sharp. --Claritas (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 10:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Newton - 1677.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2012 at 22:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Burnet Reading, after Sir Peter Lely, scan by Cambridge University - uploaded by Claritas -- Claritas (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claritas (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing extarordinary in this scan to justify featureness to my taste. Tomer T (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, high-resolution scan of a work by a notable artist showing a notable individual. Covers it for me. --Claritas (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PL - Nowy Sącz - skansen kościół z Łososiny Dolnej - Kroton 001.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2012 at 21:09:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kroton - uploaded by Kroton - nominated by Kroton -- Kroton (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kroton (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distorted perspective (with this, not even QI imho), and an unpleasant darkish area at the left. - A.Savin 21:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Somewhat soft and noisy, imho. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muybridge Buffalo galloping.gif[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2012 at 18:56:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eadweard Muybridge - uploaded by Waugsberg - nominated by varthy -- Varthy (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Varthy (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. Poor quality. Might be a valued image. Yann (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 13:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too low resolution. --Claritas (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20120303 erotic zoophilia Lakshmana Temple Khajuraho India.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2012 at 11:12:44 (UTC)

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Lakshmana Temple (Khajuraho, India) is dating 954. And this one (IMO) is one of the most eccentric erotic sculpture over there.. -- Ggia (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 12:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technical flaws: shallow DOF (bottom half of the sculpture is out of focus) and bad exposure (lots of overexposed and blown white parts). I don't evaluate the content, but if I look at some older candidates, this image cannot be featured because of the motive (e.g. here). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer Carschten technical opinion. About content: older candidates? This one is dated 954 C.E. ! (lol). But not so "lol", in fact. All the difference is here, IMO. May we could re-discuss about the contemporary Funtanari artistic merits in a millenium and a bit more... ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I don't find any comparison with Funtanari.. this is sculpture is part of UNESCO world heritage. Open your eyes and read Khajuraho Group of Monuments - UNESCO page. If you like to see more "porno" go to the video by UNESCO youtube channel Khajuraho Group of Monuments. Ggia (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to start a debate about erotic motives – I just want to say that images with such a content might (!) be problematic for some users here. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - seriously problematic content, and quality of the photography is unexceptional. --Claritas (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Opposing because of content is not acceptable. This is a UNESCO world heritage site. But quality is not the best. Yann (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will try to upload another version as alternative. I agree that hate-content votes are should not be acceptable in FPC. Not only it is a UNESCO heritage site.. but this place is also a religious place and comparison with images like Funtanari may make some religious people of that culture upset. Ggia (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, images of zoophilia are abhorrent, because a) it's perverted b) it constitutes abuse of the animals, because they can't make informed consent. We can host this content because it's legal, but it would be inappropriate for it to be showcased in a FP gallery, per principle of least astonishment. I've removed the image from this page, because the Featured Picture Candidates page should be SFW. --Claritas (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 07:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, not necessarily worth FP to me (now Wow factor), but as it is a photo of an ancient statue (just showing this practice and no live act), removing the image from this page is clearly an overreaction. Following this logic we need to bannish every photo of statues and paintings of crucified Jesus, because they show a barbarous torture to death, "which may be problematic for some users". However we decide, we should at least be consistent and not tolerate representations, where men are tortoured to death in a slow and cruel way while at the same time we complain about representations where something is happening to animals without their informed consent. I re-added the image and recommend to keep it above the voting list until the voting period is over, for reasons of fairness. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is a sculpture outside a religious temple. May-be you like may-be not. But has high EV as content, and there are a lot of scholars that are commenting about these kind sculptures in these temples. For example in this sculpture with the woman covering the face scholars are commenting that zoophilia was not something acceptable that time. If you look to it as a piece of art. it is not abusing animals (how art can abuse animals? - it is not a real video or whatever).. also everything in this sculpture are not well sized. The horse is too small.. each phallus too big.. etc etc. I plan to upload another version without the shallow DOF.. Ggia (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no problem with the content, but just because it's overexposed. Tomer T (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the comments - I uploaded another version of this image, with not overexposure, DOF Ggia (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stray kitten Rambo001.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2012 at 00:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz - uploaded by Kpjas - nominated by とある白い猫 -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose While it's very cute, it's too small and unsharp. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Too small resolution for being a FP

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

File:Vrabec-kremsnita.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2012 at 11:53:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Žiga - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Funny one, but what should make it featurable? The composition is rather unpleasant with all the dirty dishes and the contrast between fore- and background, and the lighting not the best as well imo... - A.Savin 14:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many distracting elements Poco a poco (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Citron (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:12-03-01-autostadtr-by-RalfR-25 6 7 8 9 fused edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2012 at 13:56:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ralf Roletschek - uploaded by Alchemist-hp - nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this kind of HDR were the image looks real, and also the info below the car. Well done IMO. --Kadellar (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 16:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 17:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support My father's car ! I can't remember how many times I was ill inside because of the suspension... Very good technical work, the illustrated explanation of the HDR technics in the file description page is very useful. The "best "Commons" can offer", IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)--Jebulon (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:A package for Hitler 196462 edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2012 at 10:57:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alfred T. Palmer, uploaded, restored and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 10:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like Clint Eastwood. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - only really has educational value as an example of wartime American propaganda - interesting but not really FP material for me. --Claritas (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as per Claritas. Good restoration. Yann (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good restoration work. High historical value. Far more interesting, to me, than a simple uploading of a "Google art" picture. We have here a real work of a "Commons" user, with an exceptional result. That's a FP ! (in my opinion).--Jebulon (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good--Miguel Bugallo 05:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Claritas and Yann. Moreover I'm not impressed about the PD tag ... 11/1942 + 70 years doesn't make it PD unless it's work made by a US gov agent (which we can't know). --PierreSelim (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Neutral[reply]
- Licensing seems fine by me, it's in a public domain collection in the US public archives, and it's reasonable to infer Federal authorship. --Claritas (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, dear Pierre prepare to be informed: First of all a question: Why would you possibly add 70 years to the creation date of an image, in order to calculate its copyright status, that has been obviously been created and published in the US?! Anyhow, I've done some research and found additional information on the photo. The creator of this image was Alfred T. Palmer who used a floodlight for the effect we can see in this image. Palmer was working at the OWI during that time (compare: http://www.alfredtpalmer.com/history/ ); hence this image is in the public domain. The Library of Congress holds an own copy (?) of this image, which can be found here and which provided the necessary data I'm presenting here. Other images from the same series can be found here, here and here. I hope this information was convenient enough to convince you. Changes to the image description were made accordingly. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 02:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you Peter for clearing that things up. I switch my vote to neutral. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It may be propaganda, but it's a good - no, a striking - example of it, and has human story behind it. It's also good to showcase the restoration work undertaken. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great expression --Jovian Eye _storm 13:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historic purpose and high end quality --Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Bassin des Récollets gelé, 2012-02-11 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2012 at 14:36:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Coyau - uploaded by Coyau
Support -- 46.120.8.164 14:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to login to vote!

Question What exactly is the relevance or subject of this picture?? --Martin Kraft (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The description says "Cobblestone on the frozen Canal Saint-Martin.". Tomer T (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's really hard to imagine any useful purpose for this picture on wikipedia... --Martin Kraft (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - See general rules, 7. Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - out of scope, virtually no educational value, despite the quality of the photograph. --Claritas (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it could help demonstrate that when you throw a cobblestone into the pond, sometimes the pond wins (Jeter un pavé dans la mare in French means roughly to put a cat among the pigeons). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Légèrement capillotracté, mais pourquoi pas...--Jebulon (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I like that. It's subtle. --Claritas (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merci Maurilbert. J'aime l'idée que les gens pensent à ce sujet. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 02:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now wow, I don't like the shadow of and on the stone --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Tomer T (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cathedrale Metz Nef pano.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2012 at 03:13:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by Claus
Support -- Claus (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eluveitie (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for nomination. - Benh (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claritas (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support again an impressive picture by Benh. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great sense of symmetry and all the common featured of good photo. Just tell me why not putting more res?--Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a rectilinear projection, which stretches elements on the edges. But looking at it, I think I had room for increasing size. I used to provide downsampled version of some pics, also. Not anymore most of the time now (though I haven't uploaded for long, but this should change soon). - Benh (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:El caracol de Chichén Itzá.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2012 at 17:22:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noyolcont - uploaded by Noyolcont - nominated by Noyolcont -- Noyolcont (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noyolcont (talk)12:20 9 Abril 2012
Oppose Overexposed clouds, and sharpness problems at the top of the ruin. - A.Savin 17:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition and colours as well, but the clouds are overexposed. Try to nominate the picture to QI. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- QI is not lesser FP. It should follow the same quality standards. Tomer T (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, this image meets all the basic FP requirements. It's just nothing special, and suffers from a few minor technical issues. I can see it as a QI, but not a FP. --Claritas (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Tomer T (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:James A. Garfield, portrait by Gilman in the LOC.jpg

File:Mazorcas de maíz.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2012 at 17:10:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noyolcont - uploaded by Noyolcont - nominated by Noyolcont -- Noyolcont (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Noyolcont (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, the image is unsharp and a bit to dark, but a nice idea. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Tomer T (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Namo Buddha 011.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2012 at 18:02:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Shiva Khanal - uploaded by Shiva Khanal - nominated by Shiva Khanal -- Shiva Khanal (Talk) 18:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shiva Khanal (Talk) 18:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no main subject, what is the educational use of the photo? --Ezarateesteban 18:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, confused composition. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Tomer T (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rocks and surf on Goat Rock Beach.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2012 at 10:03:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Frank Schulenburg - uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! Tomer T (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, WOW! --Pudelek (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture! -- Noyolcont (talk)12:20, 9 Abril 2012 (UTC)
Weak support Donna know what about educational value, but nice composition and athmosphere anyway. - A.Savin 17:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice finding :-D --PierreSelim (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Wiki-Calaniyot-Shokeda-ZE-001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2012 at 19:41:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Red carpet of Anemone coronaria flowers in Shokeda forest, Israel

Info created by Zachi Evenor - uploaded by MathKnight - nominated by MathKnight -- MathKnight 19:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MathKnight 19:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressive field, but there's extreme saturation in this image, sorry. --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also really like this one, but the prominent tree on the right seems to suffer from JPEG artifacts. Tomer T (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Tomer T (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lemur catta -Whipsnade Zoo, Bedfordshire, England-8a.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2012 at 15:27:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Spencer Wright - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shallow DOF, blurry, focus anywhere but not on the eyes, chromatic noise. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose focus bad, sorry --Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

File:Plaza del Castillo, Varsovia, Polonia6.jpg not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2012 at 13:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Poco a poco - improved by Aleks G -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, there are notable technical flaws: although the image looks good in 800x516 view, you can see several unpleasant artefacts (JPEG compression artefacts??) in full resolution, just look e.g. at the facade of the castle, or at the spire where strange kind of halos all around are visible. Or have a look at the sky where it looks almost like upscaled because single pixels are visible as well (wtf?!). Also, similar artefacts and additionally some chromatic aberrations at the statue, and, finally, at the very right the image is tilted ccw (albeit this latter issue is correctible). All in all, it's a pity for the nice motive, but I wonder how could the image have become even a QI... - A.Savin 16:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I took out the QI label but after some improvements (CA, artifacts, distortion, sharpness,...) I allowed myself to restore it. Please, let me know in my talk page if don't share my opinion. The nomination for FP is withdrawn. Poco a poco (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ToileBruine22.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2012 at 15:20:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lamiot - uploaded by Lamiot - nominated by p0lyzoarium -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp, chromatic aberrations. Tomer T (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could not find a single droplet in focus, a pity, nice idea. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- The idea of the composition is really great, apart from some color deviation (seen as chromatic aberration by others), and not enought HD definition.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desportes, Chienne Blanche.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2012 at 16:30:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alexandre-François Desportes - uploaded by Musée de la Chasse et de la Nature - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butch Leitzinger 52 PC Sebring.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2012 at 03:01:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nave.notnilc - uploaded by Nave.notnilc - nominated by Nave.notnilc -- Nave.notnilc (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I'd like to note that while it is somewhat noisy, I think this was pretty unavoidable given the circumstances (unlit track at night, cars approaching 200mph, the only reason the back of the car is lit at all is due to the headlights of another behind it!). Nave.notnilc (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good image, but given the circumstances I think it should not be a FP. Dipankan001 (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 12:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good image, but I find it too dark --Llorenzi (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that's it's dark. It makes it dramatic. Noise isn't too much. Tomer T (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMHO too dark and noisy and the silhouette of the car is lost in the darkness. regards --Pitlane02 _talk 18:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no sense for night shot of the car racing. Too dark, noisy, disturbing background. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't understand why this picture will be ignored because under the circumstances its superb. Little flaw: it's slight twisted and needs little cropping, that's why I give only neutral.  Richard  [®]  16:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info An alternative according to Richard's suggestion. Tomer T (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is great.  Richard  [®]  21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No changes for me, same arguments as above. regards --Pitlane02 _talk 18:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:James McNeill Whistler - La Princesse du pays de la porcelaine - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2012 at 18:00:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by James McNeill Whistler - uploaded by Dcoetzee.
Support - this image failed its first FPC due to lack of participation, but I think it's one of best reproductions of a work of fine art on Commons, so I think it should be given another chance. -- Claritas (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just another "Google Art Project" picture, no need of a FP promotion, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special thanks to Dcoetzee for keeping up the good work. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentTo be clear: I think that uploading such pictures in "Commons" is a very good thing and very useful. The more nice pictures (like this one) are known around the world, the best it is. But I think that it has no place in the FP gallery, because it is the simple copy of the work of others than "us", without any "personal" work. However, I do not oppose, because it is not the place to use my vote to make a point : it is only my opinion, and I understand it could not be shared.--Jebulon (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "Wat we are voting for" should be pretty clear. Again verdicts are returned based on the creator of the image, not the media file itself. Furthermore, I object your statement on the work invested in this reproduction: despite this being a reproduction by Google employees, their reproduction workflow is as time-consuming and difficult as it is for everyone else. Many of their reproductions are created using a Gigapan unit, a regular DSLR and lightning equipment. Maps, drawings, old photographies, paintings and other material that qualifies for 2D reproductions are "simple copies" as well. Getting this kind of material featured, and hence visible in articles and maybe into the POTD series helps to spread the word about the item. It's not about promoting the creator or the person who worked on the item, especially if he does not provide the image himself like in this case. If we continue judging images based on their creator, we will undercut the idea of free content and the cause of the Commons. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Jebulon. Wat we are voting for? For the reproduction? For the art? Can anyone explain me it??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For the reproduction and for the art.--Claus (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I much prefer File:James McNeill Whistler - La Princesse du pays de la porcelaine - brighter.jpg Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose please take a look to the image histogramm: bad light (--> false colors!?). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alofok 18:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not clear under which circumstances they got this result. In my opinion digital reproductions are very difficult to make. This picture offers no evidence (picture with gray card, color targets or a hint for the color management) which we can proove afterwards and a histogram is pointless without a reference. No proof no support.  Richard  [®]  17:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that this sort of "verification" has never been demanded before at FPC, and would be detrimental to the image as a reproduction of the artwork. It's a professional reproduction, it's a good reproduction. Go and look at the painting in real life if you think it's wrong. --Claritas (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a good reproduction I'm right there with you. But if one must have seen a picture in real-life to decide if it's color reproduction is excellent or not then you don't get a Quorum for this poll. I'am shure that some Wikipedians could do much better comprehensible results than a company which produces infinite masses of content. Once again, no proof (Reference) no support  Richard  [®]  19:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While opposing for any possible reason is fine, there is an argument against the logic of the point you are trying to make. Complaining is just the first step in order to get the desired information. If you are really that interested in the creation process of this image you might want to consider contacting Google. Otherwise, I'm afraid you won't succeed in this endeavour. As for your argumentation: as a matter of fact you have to see the original if you aim for an excellent reproduction (dunno if you have any professional experiences on this topic). Evaluating digital reproductions amongst a group of people that is working with non-standardised hardware and software (and that's what FPC is) is bogus, when trying to determine the authenticity of the original work. We had numerous discussions on the question of white balance, histogram, etc. for similar items which were all more or less pointless, regarding the aforementioned condition of differnet hardware and software. Name one Wikipedian who creates gigapixel reproductions of 2D artworks - I can't think of one single person. It's a pity to notice that your argumentation degrades into evaluating the creator of the media file as well. Again: this comment is not about your opposition (I use the opportunity of opposing for "uncommon" reasons myself quite often), it is about the logic of your argument. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be impossible for a Commoner to produce a reproduction like this, because they wouldn't be allowed access to such a valuable artwork and probably wouldn't have access to the equipment required to produce such a good scan of a large canvas. You really can have no idea of what the colours are like unless you've seen it in real life. --Claritas (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EOD.  Richard  [®]  09:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed. Changed my vote. Yann (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support A lot of photo of shell and butterfly are featured, what wrong with the paintings?--Claus (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The original does not feature this kind of brightness and neither does this edit. Obeying to the histogram won't lead you nowhere in this case. This is an unfaithful edit of the original. Yes it does look nice and shiny but it does not properly represent the original. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 07:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - don't guess the colours from the histogram. If you've seen the original artwork at the Freer you'll know that this is wrong. Whistler's painting is not gaudy like that. --Claritas (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you saw the "origanal" in 1863-1865? Yes? I think no! All the arts are aging. The colors too. The art will be yellowed. And the histogram says to me: the scan is simply wrong. That's all. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. But we shouldn't try to replicate its original appearance unless there is an academic consensus that it looks like that. Thanks for trying to help, but the original colours (or the slightly brighter edit) are much better than this. --Claritas (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my conclusion: the scan isn't a good work and therefore the image can't be FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that as your opinion, although I would urge you to reconsider, seeing that this is a high quality professional scan done for the Google Art Project. --Claritas (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alchemist, given your various statements, I assume you are not into conservation and restoration. It looks like you are trying to use a method of interpretation of histograms that works just fine for everyday photography, but most certainly does not for reprography standards. The idea behind reprography is to create a genuine copy of the object you are aiming to photograph/digitise. If that leads us to an histogram without a bell curve, that's perfectly okay. Ofc we don't know how the original looked back when it was created, but that's not our aim; otherwise we would be using crystal balls on the Commons. The changes you applied are based on a technical assumption without considering the actual ageing process of the image: the histogram represents an underexposed image, hence correcting it will improve the result. Unless the original painting gets restored, the Google Art Project reprography will remain a faithful reproduction of the original artwork - even with a misfitting histogram. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 02:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, "the histogram represents an underexposed image, ....", an underexposed scan is an FP image for you, but not for me. OK, I'm still learning ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alchemist, with all due respect, "fixing" the histogram is easy. Producing a scan of this sort of resolution is not easy, and there's therefore no explanation of why the professionals who created this reproduction would have left it with incorrect tones when it would be dead easy to sort out. --Claritas (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks too artificial. alofok 18:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry, but thinking these histogram games are more faithful than the professional work at the Google Art Project seems a bit... ...naive to me. --Dschwen (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as for dschwen & Peter Weis -- smial (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peter.  Richard  [®]  18:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Recurvirostra novaehollandiae in flight - Lake Joondalup.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2012 at 03:59:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. --NJR_ZA (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per English Wikipedia. — Jkadavoor (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 10:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--P0lyzoarium (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, I support despite that I think the resolution could (should) be higher. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achird (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Salle de lecture Bibliotheque Sainte-Genevieve n07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2012 at 07:48:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Paris 16
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 12:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very slight red CA at left, but otherwise very good and impressive, composition and light especially. Great wow factor to me.--Jebulon (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 19:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Shuttle IMAX Cameras at the Smithsonian.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2012 at 05:42:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA, uploaded and nominated by Dipankan001 (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality image -- Dipankan001 (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 12:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp and noisy, and I don't really like the background. But overall nice image. Tomer T (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per tomer. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:USDnotes.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2012 at 04:57:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andyhi18, modified by Hidro - uploaded by Hidro - nominated by Dipankan001 -- Dipankan001 (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Please send a couple of these... ;o) Yann (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 12:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very useful image, but a bunch of notes provide no "wow" to me. What next? A bunch of Euro notes perhaps... --Jovian Eye _storm 21:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm cool with this. --Claritas (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree there is no wow, but I think this kind of works are useful to Wikipedia and should be supported. The image has good quality, nice EV, colors look OK. What I don't like is that the reverse part of the banknotes is not shown. Also minor issues like tilt on some notes, and the 10 dollar bill not being as sharp as the others. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Useful but I can't see a FP star shining here  Richard  [®]  18:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- -donald- (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Claus (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is straight out of a scanner. This can be recreated in 5 seconds provided you have $188. Composition matters. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I'd consider this if it was a set nom of higher-res individual notes with both sides shown. As others have pointed out the $10 is not sharp enough. --99of9 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but not FP for me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vultures in the nest, Orchha, MP, India.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2012 at 05:09:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Yann (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is taken from the top of this: File:Old temple, Orchha.jpg. I had to do dangerous acrobaties, but it seems worth the risk. See also File:Vulture nests, Orchha, Madhya Pradesh, India.jpg. Yann (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very cute one! Deserves to be a featured one. Dipankan001 (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what's the white on the background? Tomer T (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Something down at the bottom of the temple probably. Yann (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excellent subject with encyclopaedic value, but that background really spoils it and makes it non-FP. Can it be retaken with better composition? --NJR_ZA (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. It can't be retaken. This is a very rare opportunity to take these birds in the nest. Not only it is the only picture of vulture nest on Commons, but one of the best you can find on the whole Internet, with both adults and juvenile visible. Yann (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann Tomer T (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the "very best" quality, but well captured, and valuable for Wikipedia. - A.Savin 21:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad light (all is shady), disturbing area on the right and in the background, sharpness could be better, boring and grey colours. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Carschten, except for the colors part. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Carschten--Miguel Bugallo 20:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 07:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achird (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this shot is very difficult, I'll give the photographer some leniency with technical aspects here. --Claritas (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both the white building in the background and the rock in the right can be removed by some editing work. This can yield a much better result. Gidip (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. --Jovian Eye _storm 02:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Delimara Point Malta 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2012 at 12:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me, edited by Carschten. -- Felix König ✉ 12:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Felix König ✉ 12:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 12:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Óðinn (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not really sure - that's an impressive composition, but lacks sharpness. - A.Savin 21:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good composition, lacking sharpness --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the good composition is good enough for FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Taxiarchos228. –Makele-90 (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot but it's lacking crispyness I'am affraid  Richard  [®]  18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Tomer T (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russian Kamov Ka-52 helicopter - Bronnitsy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2012 at 16:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by VitalyKuzmin - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lazyhawk (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --VitalyKuzmin (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is one of the best photos we have on Commons of this helicopter. But this is not the only reason I decided to upload it immediately when I found it. --High Contrast (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Óðinn (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bottom side to dark, and the propellers are to immobile. The exposure time of 1/1600 are to unfavorable. Better 1/160 - 1/500s like this File:EC-135_SP-HXX_HEMS.JPG. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above - this exposure time does not provide enough dynamics. Also, don't like the harsh contrast. - A.Savin 20:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Yann (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dover - White Cliffs.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2012 at 07:38:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me, -- Eluveitie (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eluveitie (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{FPX|The resolution is too small. 2MP are needed. - Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)}}~~[reply]

Was re-uploaded with a higher resolution. Tomer T (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's start again :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Strange composition impo. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting picture I guess but I fail to see why it would be featured - the person with the umbreela looks interesting I guess --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colias dimera copulating.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2012 at 02:15:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Paolo Costa (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A big thank you to Alvesgaspar for the hint on a great, inexpensive macro lens for my camera.
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks like a focus stacking image to me? - A.Savin 10:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in this case. Only one image was used. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It could be a Supergigamega awesome picture if it would be possible to do a 3 picture stack, as it's now it's good enough.  Richard  [®]  18:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A great picture. Some credit goes to the lens, of course, but most of it goes to the photographer! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Citron (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 21:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support May I know what this inexpensive solution is? --Jovian Eye _storm 23:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is specified on the file page: the japanese Tokina ATX PRO 100mm f/2.8 for Nikon. It is not exactly the cheapest of lenses, and has no VR, but it costs half what the Nikkor micro lens costs. It is very well built, is very sharp, has a very intelligent and fast autofocus, reaches 1:1 ratio, and has got many good critics. One thing I love about it is the "clutch" system that allows you to switch manual and autofocus modes very easily. Overall very happy with it, I recommend it as well. --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ace Alborzagros (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Oppose~~ Butterflies mating, another time, as usual. No wow. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Hmmm... Jebulon, is that really an argument, the "just another xxx"? cuz I don't se your oppose on JJ's bird or Llez's shell. Not trying to be controversial but... --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes sorry, maybe you are right. I remove my oppose and stay Neutral--Jebulon (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Areas in the right head are not in focus. The damage to the wings is very disturbing. Need more luck to catch individuals with complete wings. User:Quartl has set very high standards for butterfly FPs. Unfortunately, this is not enough. Gidip (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought I think the quality is good enough with respect to sharpness. The colours are really beautiful. Only the wing damage is very disturbing to me. I am also Neutral. Gidip (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per Gidip. Sorry. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Still per Gidib, now Neutral too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Overlook trail view - Zion Canyon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2012 at 03:16:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Self-created, uploaded and nominated. -- Óðinn (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Óðinn (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support maybe too dark or too bright in places, but genereally does the wow to me. Tomer T (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Ståvatn Norway 3045 6 7 fused.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2012 at 17:39:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 14:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Strong effect on eyes, difficult to interpret as 'natural' landscape --Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please take a look to the three "single" images and decide on new: + + . I added this info to the image too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best is this, but I like it as it is now. In my opinion, you sholudn't edit the photo (for example, in this I donna like clouds and colour). --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Stryn (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes I think that works for me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than the other one imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very clear landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:NegevWadi2009.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2012 at 15:30:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:wilson44691 - uploaded by User:wilson44691 - nominated by User:Wilson44691 -- Wilson44691 (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wilson44691 (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Confusing caption. I think a tighter lower crop would be better in this image. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it confusing? Tomer T (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I got a bit confused because of no spacing, a number attached to the name, no country specification... it just says NegevWadi2009, it was not very clear to me what it meant. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So maybe it can be changed to "Negev Wadi, Israel, 2009"? Tomer T (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly, I think that way would be much better even for file searching purposes. --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm afraid according to Commons:File renaming, it should not be renamed. Maybe a clear caption in the filepage is sufficient. Tomer T (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Nominated by Tomer T (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info according to Paolo's suggestion. Tomer T (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! Wilson44691 (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Tomer T (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Volva volva 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2012 at 06:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, I don't think it stands out among Mollusca pictures. Tomer T (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is hard work, especially the two profiles. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks! You need a lot of pictures and a lot of time... --Llez (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is so hard with the two profiles? Is there any trick (stack focusing?) behind? - Benh (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It is a close up with a DOF of 5 cm (in this case, in other shells up to 15 cm(!), see [2] ). It is only possible with stacking. All my shell photos are stacked from 50 - 80 pictures (about 10 or more for each view) --Llez (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I should have guessed DOF would be an issue here. It looks very natural to me. I'm stubborn, so I don't support for reasons you know well... but I think it's nice job. Thanks for explaining :). - Benh (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support-- Raghith 10:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Empire state building USA.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2012 at 07:28:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by LordGui99 - uploaded by LordGui99 - nominated by LordGui99 -- LordGui99 (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LordGui99 (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut on the top, unsharp, ordinary composition. Tomer T (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Quality is definitely too low for a FP candidate. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 11:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Basilico.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2012 at 19:06:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Stefano Massa -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 19:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 19:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you scared by the picture? :/ --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 15:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ciao Stefano. Se ti interessa il mio parere penso che il motivo principale dei pochi voti é che, pur essendo una foto abbastanza corretta, senza gravi difetti, é una foto che trasmette poco. Non sembra troppo interessante (c'é solo del gran verde e basta, a me é capitato con una foto dove c'era solo del blu, mare e cielo) e per questo motivo forse la gente non apre il file e non commenta. Un altro problema é l'illuminazione, dato che una buona parte del basilico é stata ripresa all'ombra. Spero ti serva da feedback, un saluto. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sai, avevo pensato che metà semi-ombra e metà luce fosse più armonico. Grazie comunque. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 17:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Love it. Kleuske (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For such an easy motif too many dark "fields" impo. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Yikrazuul --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greater Crimson Glider Urothemis signata Female by Kadavoor.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2012 at 08:32:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info They love perching on sticks and branches in the blazing sunshine. Created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jkadavoor (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! -- Noyolcont (talk) 12:20, 9 Abril 2012 (UTC)
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 10:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to Oppose Very nice colors but it's lacking quality and the composition could be better (the central motif should be moved more upwards). Well, the resolution isn't superb I have to say.  Richard  [®]  16:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose extensive cropping, low quality. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 15:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 17:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Nominated by Jkadavoor (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination per above oppositions. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm; I think I was in a hurry to withdraw, didn't care to count the 7 supports. :( Jkadavoor (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

The chosen alternative is: File:Greater Crimson Glider Urothemis signata Female by Kadavoor.jpg

File:Kanadagans1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2012 at 10:06:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Das ist keine Graugans, das ist eine Kanadagans. Please rename your file. Danke! --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- erledigt. Danke für die Richtigstellung --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Caption not very useful. No species identification on the file description either. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the latin name. The sex of this species I can not identify. I you can can feel free to add it. I am no expert. Beside of this I don't know what this has to do with the picture itself. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Solid work and QI of course but what is missing is that extra something, sorry.  Richard  [®]  16:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 19:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A common bird, so I would expect something more interesting. For me there is a distracting posture of one of its legs. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice shot, but per Richard and Snowmanradio and additional a too simple centered composition for me. Sorry Wladyslaw. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh my goodness, I just wonder how these bird pictures could get excellent - most of them are simply centred. Maybe you should start some delisting candidatures. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Different voters, different opinions. Different time, different result. No math, no logic, it's controlled by people, this is what makes it so appealing. ;-) Best regards  Richard  [®]  14:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Missing logic in some opinions is nothing new to me. :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fascinating, I would say :-P  Richard  [®]  20:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 7/3... suspens !!--Jebulon (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Tomer T (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAs a "contra" voter changed his vote in "neutral" without explanations, the count is still 7/3, and the suspense is hitchcockian I may say...--Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (it doesn't annoy me, but) very productive comments, I've to say. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Alchemist-hp, even if I also agree with Wladyslaw, that a lot of images in the FP list doesn't have excellent compositions, too. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. A common species like Branta canadensis needs to pack a lot more punch to be featured. Composition, composition, composition.... พ.s. 05:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me wow. nice shot. --Ralf Roleček 09:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Support -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry, too late, voting period ends. --212.144.66.79 12:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kids, Namibe, Angola cropped.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2012 at 11:55:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alfred Weidinger - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very interesting! -- Noyolcont (talk) 12:20, 9 Abril 2012 (UTC)
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, in a difficult situation to get subjects to look at camera. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version --Llorenzi (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --David საქართველო 09:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better--Citron (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

The chosen alternative is: File:Kids, Namibe, Angola cropped.jpg

File:Morgan Pressel - Flickr - Keith Allison (28).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2012 at 20:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Keith Allison from Owings Mills, USA - uploaded by Yjenith - nominated by Claus
Support -- Claus (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually don't like that part of her legs is hidden. Tomer T (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Tomer T, really needs more legs ;) --Claritas (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Composition could be better. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am rather oddly amused that she is wearing a polo shirt while playing golf. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Murailles château Madeleine Chevreuse.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2012 at 14:55:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me-- Jebulon (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the ruined walls of Château de la Madeleine, Chevreuse, Yvelines, France.-- Jebulon (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can you fractionally increase the crop at the left ? Distracting zone in notes. --Claritas (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't understand "Distracting zones in notes"--Jebulon (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look at the image notes. --Claritas (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NVStateRoute158.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2012 at 04:34:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A view of Nevada State Route 158 on the side of a forest-clad mountain.

Info - Created by, uploaded by, and nominated by Scottthezombie (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Scottthezombie (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motive, but the overall athmosphere somehow does not convince me. Maybe a different light constellation (sunset?) would have made it more impressive. Also, not very sharp. - A.Savin 17:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Savin. -- -donald- (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Slawenburg Raddusch (Raduš) 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2012 at 10:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfavorable light, composition: too much sky, too much grass. A bit unsharp too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- this is lighting in the evening in December --Pudelek (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alchemist--Miguel Bugallo 16:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would crop a bit of the top and bottom. Too much redundant sky and foreground imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will support a less grass version. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hacienda jaral de berrios 2012.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2012 at 14:17:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monarch butterfly mexico 2012.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2012 at 14:02:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but 2 shallow DOF for my taste. Regards  Richard  [®]  17:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is too low: too many blurry areas.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far from FP quality. Gidip (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The head is not in focus at all, and so is a major part of the wing. The resolution of the entire animal is low. The flowers are also very blurred. Gidip (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? DOF issues are always a variable in real life photography. DOF is a resource to attract attention, or distract. Opinions are ok, especially when well founded, if not, silence is a better critic. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I respect Richard´s opinion, even though I may not like his vote, it is an oppose vote based on a qualitative appreciation of a concrete technical aspect based on photographic criteria, however, Archaeodontosaurus and Gidip´s vote stating low quality is really a low quality vote itself in my opinion, for they do not offer a valid technical or aesthetical reason, or even an opinion. What constitutes low quality or far from FP quality? Such statements never come from knowledgeable critics. FPC can really do without this type of voting. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not satisfied with the composition as well but I hope you admit that I'am not able to write an essay for every candidate (diction). Best regards  Richard  [®]  09:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I am very much OK with your vote... I really do not have a problem with it... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My opinion does not in any of the esthetic, but on the technical weakness of this picture. Much of the animal (the wing, the head) is blurred, the flower on which it is blurred. The upper flowers in a red color fringe. This aberration that found on the leaves on the right side of the image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that the human eye only sees in complete sharpness about 1% of the field of vision? Whay do you think that is? To selectively focus and make sense of the world... if we were to see everything is sharp focus the world would be a complete visual confusion... so in photography. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (only) with this point; wonder why people always demand everything in focus by using small aperture. For me, this means less details overall where as big aperture means much details on the focal point neglecting other areas. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why people demand extreme DOF? Simply because sometimes people do not know better. It is like asking that every note in a musical piece be played with the same intensity, duration or volume. Music is the interaction of notes, with different volumes, duration, etc., etc.... photography is visual music. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our internal competitions intended to us progress. There is no controversy in my remarks or personal attacks. I sincerely regret your attitude. « Ira furor brevis est ». --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too; just responded while seeing a discussion on DOF. Sorry if I hurt you.(There are so many images (not only of me) rejected in QIC by saying the extreme body parts like the wing tip of a dragonfly are out of focus.) Jkadavoor (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps Tomascastelazo, which undoubtedly is an experienced photographer, should tell us what he thinks is so special in this picture of a butterfly and what makes it so much worthy of a FP status unlike the so many other butterfly photos in Commons. Gidip (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good try, but that is not the way it works. Creators do not need to explain, critics, on the other hand, need firm ground to support their statements. General statements from critics that stand on comments like "far from FP quality" are unaceptable. A critic supports his opinions on more or less objecive grounds that have to do with observable characterictics based on their knowledge of the media and universal principles, not on their subjective appreciation that come fron an innate sense of aesthetics. Part of the problem in modern times is that anyone with a camera calls her/himself a photographer in the same manner that anyone with a computer or typewriter would call himself a writer or a poet. Now, on the other hand, if you oppose this picture on solely on your opinion, I would have nothing to say about that. My specific problem with your oppose is that you declare it to lack quality as if that were true. That I challenge, your opinion I do not. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would only benefit the discussion if you explained what you think is so good in this image. You dismissed the sharpness criterion, suggest other criteria which make it so special. I don't see any. And I'm a bit ashamed of myself that I am carrying on this stupid, useless discussion. Is this a hoax? Gidip (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I uploaded the image and proposed it for FP is in fact proof of my opinion that it is good enough, not needing any additional explanation. I then put it up for evaluation, with the hope that it would be qualified according to well established photographic criteria, which has really rarely been the case here in my years of participation. There is a well established methodology for evaluation of photographs which has historically been ignored here, whether people know it or not, like it or not, do it or not. Suggest other criteria? How about knowledge of the subject matter? Stupid, useless discussion? If you make it so. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; and I saw your beautiful work in the galley. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tomas, you can't change the world. No one can. Tomer T (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; this is an uncategorized image and he didn't even fill the image description too. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:DHM - König Wilhelm I von Preußen.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2012 at 08:16:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too dark. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danaus chrysippus male by kadavoor.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2012 at 08:21:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info “Male danaines have a number of secondary sexual characteristics. In the case of the Plain Tiger, these are: The male has a pouch on the hindwing. This spot is white with a thick black border and bulges slightly. It is a cluster of specialised scent scales called androconia, used to attract females. The males possess two brush-like organs which can be pushed out of the tip of the abdomen. He dips his brush into the pheromone reservoir and flicks it into the air; this hopefully encourages an amorous response in the female.” Created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Jkadavoor (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a rare and valuable picture showing the exposed brush-like organ. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharpness and chromatic aberrations. Tomer T (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is anything correctable? I've another version in the file history but not happy with the cropped antenna. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Useful but it's lacking quality I'am affraid.  Richard  [®]  18:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Nominated by Jkadavoor (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is much better in terms of sharpness and CAs, but I'm afraid it has JPEG artefacts. Tomer T (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much confused with wing scales and JPEG artefacts. Expecting a comment from the butterfly experts. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are actually many compression artifacts --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination as per Tomer and Archaeodontosaurus. Jkadavoor (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hanford N Reactor adjusted.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2012 at 08:08:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by United States Department of Energy - uploaded by Cacophony - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 08:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 08:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Водонапорная башня в Слюдянке.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 08:27:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Egor Shustoff - uploaded by Egor Shustoff - nominated by Egor Shustoff -- Egor Shustoff (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Egor Shustoff (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CAs and overexposure. Tomer T (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed and low sharpening. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: per above. Tomer T (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A woman taking picture with the help of a telescope, Montmartre, Paris 2011.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2012 at 22:08:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Florian Plag (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special with that ordinary FlickR-picture. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where is the 'featured' part ? --Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing special. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't support on technical grounds (lighting, etc) but I think this is a very captivating image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ToastedWhiteBread.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2012 at 13:37:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by National Cancer Institute - uploaded by 17Drew - nominated by me -- -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has such quality and looks delicious! It's also a FP on the Cantonese Wikipedia -- -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No effect, Wow. Very poor quality. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - per Archaeodontosaurus. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above--David საქართველო 09:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is just about the very definition of white-bread image (Sorry). Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tour de Chenonceau.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2012 at 17:36:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by [[User:--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)]] - uploaded by User:Tour de Chenonceau.jpg - nominated by User:Tour de Chenonceau.jpg -- Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grills disturbing the image, extreme chromatic aberration on the right hand side. Dipankan001 (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The "extreme chromatic abberation" is just a greenish piece of glass, AFAICT. Not uncommon in leaded windows. It does disturb the composition, though. Kleuske (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I understand the concept of the composition the leaded parts simply detract from the overall image I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I'd like it if there weren't grills. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I withdrawn the nomination... you are not ready for this yet.

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bombyliid on Bellevalia 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Bombyliid fly pollinating Bellevalia flexuosa. All by Gidip. Nomination was withdrawn and restored after three days. --Gidip (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gidip (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral To me great compo, but bokeh is not pretty and the light is low (though I am an adept of low light pictures...)--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks contrast. Point of view does not allow for a visual understanding of the subject, hiding important morphological aspects. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Tomas and not identified and a bit noisy. พ.s. 05:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Oppose Should be identified first.  Richard  [®]  09:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought an exact ID is not necessary for FP status. I have already attempted identification and consulted the diptera.info site, but the best ID level possible is tribe Bombyliini. Better ID requires capturing the insect or at least seeing the wing venation. Regarding the lighting problem - is this something that can be fixed? Gidip (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you taken the picture in RAW mode?  Richard  [®]  11:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Gidip (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then it should be no problem to do a new more comprehensive RAW development. For me it looks slightly underexposed.  Richard  [®]  14:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you Richard, I uploaded a new version. I was away for a few days... Gidip (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Gidi, that's not the correct way to start a new vote. You should open it in a new page, otheerwise the bot will keep closing it. Tomer T (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /— revi_msg 15:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ho Ngoc Ha 2011.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 02:39:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by vikhoa - uploaded by Beyoncetan - nominated by Beyoncetan -- Beyoncetan (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beyoncetan (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too tightly cropped. Tomer T (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice portraiture, but not as sharp as it could be, and crop too tight at left. --Claritas (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Clarias. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: copyright violation - Paris 16 (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hagia Sophia Segment.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2012 at 09:32:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Ogodej - nominated by Teemeah -- Teemeah (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Teemeah (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Szajci ^pošta 09:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Csigabi (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is very useful for the people like me without special studies in architecture but having an eye for the mathematical beauty. --Hkoala (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Istvánka (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Einstein2 (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tambo (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only to balance the canvassing. Tomer T (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of electoral corruption. Nice meat-puppet block.  Richard  [®]  10:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)  Richard  [®]  16:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no puppeting here. This image is soon to be featured on huwiki and supporters support it here as well. What's corruption in there? We all voted based on the quality of the image. Teemeah (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No puppeting, canvassing. Tomer T (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info [3] - Tambo (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before speaking about meat puppets you should check the contributions of the respective users. As for me, I have been an editor on the huwiki since February 2006. --Hkoala (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[4] Hkoala +1 Tambo (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --OsvátA ^Palackposta 11:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~FPX: Below 2MP minimum - A.Savin 10:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Savin, you can't FPX a nominated picture that has support other than the nominator's. And looking on computer-generated featured pictures gallery, it seems like 2MP rule is normally not applied for computer-generated diagrams. Tomer T (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a vector image. Of course pixel count rules do not apply. --Tgr (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - A.Savin 11:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ivanhoe (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear nominator and supporters, think about this: Let's suppose you are part of a community. You post pictures to see if they are selected among the best content of commons. You work hard to make photos/images/diagrams and then wait for people's votes. Sometimes your pictures get featured sometimes they don't. Images are selected over a consensus of many users who regularly come and vote and somehow set the standards to define whether the pictures should be featurable or not. You have to wait for more than a week, in order to see if your picture gets featured, having to deal with people who are very demanding (that's the whole point on selecting the best content). Then one day comes a person who told other users to support his image, and gets enough supports to be featured in less than a day. I'm not even saying this person forced anyone to vote. But this guys who supported haven't even been active on this forum, don't know the regular standars, nor have they posted many pictures. Do they have the right to vote? yes. Are they doin' it out of any personal interest or as a favor? Hmmm. If you really think it was featurable, then that's ok to feature it on Huwiki where you all are active and have been active for a while. But to come here and vote all at once without having been active is suspicious no matter what. So, think about this, how would you feel, seeing this person get its photo featured with no effort? Would you feel he cheated (be honest with yourself on this point)? How do you think the members of the community would take it? Do you really think this is ethically correct? My personal opinion is, of course everyone on FPC is gonna think "hey, not so easy" and are going to oppose. Before giving any vote myself I want to see if any of you would reconsider your support vote, and what does the nominator have to say about this, as well as other users. This is a good diagram, in my opinion, it would have been featured anyway. But now I'm not so sure: Wiki projects are based on voluntary work and ethics should always be kept high. I think this kind of behaviour should be punished. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but you are talking as if this were some kind of a conspiracy. Do these people come over to vote for other pictures? maybe not. Then again, it's not in their interest and not many photos have ever been nominated from a huwiki user because no one bothers to nominate them, or the uploader doesn't know how to nominate them. I have been asked to nominate this work because the huwiki community thinks this is really an exceptional work of art in quality and the people who voted here voted for it in huwiki as well at the local featured process. They did not vote out of favour or personal interest. Simply when they got to know that it is also up on commons, they voted for its quality. What the hell is wrong with that? Are we not valuable contributors? hell, you are making it look like a bunc of kids are playing around. All these people are long time valuable contributors to wiki, check their contribs yourself, most the of these people have several featured articles and some of them also work with photos on commons, including myself. I am also an OTRS agent and an image patroller on my wiki. So if we are not spending 100% of our time on Commons, then we are morally ineligible to vote on a work of art transferred from our home wiki? Are you friggin' serious? You know what? I start to believe that Commons is becoming an elitistic circle where local users and admins decide on what is right and what is wrong and deny a piece of true artwork and quality image its right to get featured based on nonsense reasoning. You know, this is exactly why most of our users are not keen on uploading anything to Commons anymore, or work with images here, because you guys make everyone feel like a criminal. As a regular contributor of 7 years to Wikipedia, with over 80 thousand edits and 24 featured articles, I REFUSE your accusations and find this utterly disgusting and ridiculous. Why you people can't talk about the picture at a procedure about a picture?! Teemeah (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- As expected, you did not read from a neutral point of view, only focused on yourself taking it as an accusation and "REFUSING" and finding "disgusting" etc etc. Can't have an adult conversation like this. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo, you make it sound as if featuring is some sort of reward for enduring the hardships of the featuring process. Ideally, it should be be about the hardships of creating the image - if the featuring process itself is also hard, that's just an unfortunate byproduct, not a value that should be defended against all the villains who are unscrupulous enough to mention on their home wiki that they made a nomination. The image itself seems to be on par in quality and difficulty with other featured vector images like [5] or [6]. If there is any problem with it should be explained (opposing without explaining how the author/nominator/reviewers could do better is, as the voting guideline points out, quite unhelpful); if it is of sufficient quality, then what exactly is all the drama about? Opposing an otherwise worthy image out of jealousy that the author would get the star easier than others did is not exactly what I would call higher ethical standards. -Tgr (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- One clear point was made. People never participating on FPC, suddenly give 8-9 support votes to a candidate. Does not seem fair to the rest of nominators. No drama to me. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  How the hell is voting for a featured-quality image to be featured unfair? What is unfair is opposing a perfectly good nomination just because you suspect that the supporters gave the right vote for the wrong reason. You are basically threatening to use your vote to disrupt the quality standardization process COM:FPC is meant to be, just to spite some of the other voters. That is petty behavior, and hugely disrespectful to the author, the nominator (who probably should have known better than to make an announcement on the local wiki, but that is no reason to treat her as if she tried to cheat or something) and all the supporters who actually took the time to read up on COM:FP standards and compare the image to other featured vector images (and I'm fairly sure there were a few). I do respect that you at least took the time to explain what your problem is, and did that in a friendly and constructive tone; and I do agree that inviting the friends and co-contributors of the nominee might bias the process, but trying to correct it by "tactical voting" is horribly misguided; especially since you yourself agree that the result is, in this case, correct anyway. --Tgr (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  I might be wrong, I might not. So far I have my personal opinion. I understand yours, but don't share it. Let's see what other voters think about this situation; there's still more than a week left. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The texts seem to be given as paths, which makes localization hard. It would be better if those could be replaced with <text> elements (probably not that important for the numbers, but e.g. the N for North might not be obvoius in all cultures). --Tgr (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now; agree with Paolo Costa and other opposers. There is no meaning in repeating the same opinion at huwiki or any other place here. Here people from all locations are participating so you will get a global feedback. So it is better to keep sitlent after the nomination so that you will get an unbaised review. Here you ruined the chance. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Thank you, Tgr, these are really objections that can be corrected or modified. For the debate: I – as the creator of the picture – really do not miss that star, I will not be more or less as a consequence of getting it or not. From a certain respect I am happy that I or the community of the huwiki is accused of being meat-puppets because of a picture that is approved even among the editors of huwiki. It can be seen from the lot of votes that the community is glad to bear the fate of the work of one of their associates. If the too many voters of huwiki disturb you in judging the quality of the picture (in fact it would be unethical to prevent someone from _this_), object. I would have been happy if the quality of the picture had been discussed on this page, and I am still embarrased. Ogodej (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you didn't understand the point we raised. There is a rule "Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes"; so we just tried to block it and make enough time for a real review. Now you can see some constructive comment below. But my advise is to withdraw and make a fresh nomination even though I'm nobody to advise. (There may be a chance of language problem too for these heated arguments; I afraid.) Jkadavoor (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Neutral~~ Thank you for all the opposers for not talking about the merits of the picture but mentioning unbiassed arguments such as "meat-puppeting", "should be punished", or "ruined the chance" instead. Csigabi (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- "Neutral" is a vote. If I'm not wrong, you have already voted "pro" (see above). You can't vote twice, sorry, that is the common rule here in FPC page (where you are obviously welcome...).--Jebulon (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral picture is good.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it's very clean job (among the most visible issues, the supposedly right angles don't seem soo right, same for parallels lines). There's no point in vectorizing something if it's to end with so many inaccuracies (since zooming only emphasizes the flaws). I'd be happy to see the source (of the jpeg) to compare and eventually prove myself wrong. - Benh (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reflection, this picture is a composition from multiple sources issued in the description, cannot be uploaded here because of copyright law. Ogodej (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a Jpeg referred as source in description. Am I right? Jkadavoor (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This svg version based on jpg [7] and others. I made an svg version because of the Huwiki nomination. Ogodej (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The description only mentions one source though. The (now deleted) jpg version on huwiki said it was a composition from multiple sources but did not name those sources (just pointed to the sources section of Hagia Szophia article, which is completely useless for identifying sources). Ideally, the image description should list what information has been taken from which sources. --Tgr (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the copyright, scanning book pages and mailing them to someone is legal in Hungary as long as you don't scan the whole book. Scanning and uploading to some non-Wikimedia hosting space is technically not legal, but I doubt anyone would care. --Tgr (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Benh. --Citron (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let's talk quality first: The transparency of walls and floors renders the image unusable on all but the palest backgrounds. There is also an inconsistency in the shading on the roofs (direction of the light). These flaws are of course not helped by the vote pushing. พ.s. 05:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The canvassing that was done on the local wiki was unfortunate, but I do not think it was done as a bad faith action. So let us be a little welcoming here. All the Hungarian editors voting here are well estalished on Commons, most of them for years. They may not be frequent visitors at FPC, but we have no requirements for voters in the guidelines, which says you need to have that. Having said that, I found it very discouraging to see the foul language and angry reply to Paolos "Dear nominator/voters..." comment. (I hope I will not be met with such hostility when I come to Hungary later this year to participate in a concert in one of the churches in Budapest.) The comment was an invitation to reflect, and not intended to harass Hungarian users in my opinion. But opposing to counterbalance canvassing is equally bad style IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expressing a balanced view. I agree that people should vote on the merits of the picture and not based on whether or not they like the author or the actions of others. --Malatinszky (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ignoring all above. It is a good attempt at producing an SVG version of an existing jpg, but in photos we require technical quality for FP and we should look for the same in SVG. (A) This SVG fails validation (See w3c validation results). (b) The fonts have been converted to paths while Commons:SVG specifically asks that it not be converted. (c) The image is not categorised within the Category:SVG tree. --NJR_ZA (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good attempt, but has many major issues: (1) the rendering of flat surfaces is similar to that of the domes and therefore confusing; (2) there is an inconsistency in explaining the spaces: two labels on the drawings, the others as numeric keys; (3) no scale bar; (4) North sign incorrect; (5) windows are not represented correctly and appear as entrees; (6) File name is wrong (should be "section" not "segment"); ~~(7) In the file description English and Hungarian should be separate not mixed.~~ There's more but I stop here. --ELEKHH^T 22:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the description. North seems to be a different direction on pretty much all Hagia Sophia plans (the exonarthex faces west on the current image and here (I think - the compass is hard to make out), north-northwest on yours, west-northwest on this and this one, northwest here etc). Google maps shows northwest but I'm not sure how accurate their projection is. --Tgr (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google maps is fairly accurate, so all maps point towards north-west (with small variations) except the drawings which indicate west, which appear to be a gross simplification. Thanks for fixing the description. --ELEKHH^T 20:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cabot Square, Canary Wharf - June 2008.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2012 at 21:45:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Elekhh (previous incomplete nomination by IP) -- ELEKHH^T 21:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ELEKHH^T 21:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should transfer it to another page? The bot will keep closing it in the wrong time. Tomer T (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the version from 2009, hope that's OK so. - A.Savin 13:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help, I wasn't sure what's the best way to technically handle it, but in the end is the same result. --ELEKHH^T 20:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 22:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good! --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Elisabeth of Hungary Moroder.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2012 at 16:51:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment doesn't seem really sharp to me... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A pity... Carschten is right, could be sharper. Please try to re-shot if possible, because the subject is FP, to me.--Jebulon (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - issues with sharpness, but the composition is excellent and I think this still deserves FP. --Claritas (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Claritas. Tomer T (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp... per above, sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support real enough sharpness, allways better than the synthetic photoshoped sharpness. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 06:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Maiquetía Nacional Airport.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2012 at 14:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither the overall composition nor the lighting are featurable to me, sorry. - A.Savin 16:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - unconventional lighting and movement control, but I like it. --Claritas (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe not the nicest framing but nice scene with silhouettes and nice colors. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Savin. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful image that's full of rich colors. Per Claritas. --Egunt07 (talk)
Oppose per Savin --David საქართველო 09:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 06:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Tomer T (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pulkovo Airport panoramic view.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2012 at 22:53:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dmitry Avdeev - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image, despite foggy weather. - A.Savin 23:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- bushman787 12:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GreyHood ^Talk 18:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 19:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 09:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Strobilurus esculentus Fichten-Zapfenrübling.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2012 at 17:58:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- A catchy luminous zone near the mushroom diverts the eye from the wanted FP. Thought, subject is well in focus.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Citron (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this grows this way? Jkadavoor (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support High EV as usual, very useful. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support rare photo --Schnobby (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Addo Elefants Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2012 at 15:54:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JulianHammer - uploaded by JulianHammer - nominated by NJR_ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NJR_ZA (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great panorama. Tomer T (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp.--Claus (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support weak support. Could indeed be of better technical quality in several ways, but fascinating, dramatic and puzzling scene (could almost be a "story" photo by David Drebin). A lot of animals on the scene (not only elephants). What is going on? Is the elefant herd dividing? Some elephants veer away to the left, others to the right. Will the cow with the baby accompany the left or the right group? What about the elephant in the far back? A bull elephant outside the herd? Is it a single herd which was just confused by the car and re-united 5 min later? -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - that's a good panorama with a high resolution, but some notable unsharp areas throughout the picture make it non-featurable imo. Also, I find the hars shadow in the background disturbing. - A.Savin 11:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Otherwise very interesting picture and candidate but for me it falls short of the overall sharpness I was expecting. Some parts of the picture are very good while somewhere else there seems to have been an error with focus. I like the cloudy but dry weather. --Ximonic (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stitching error, see image note.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I need a better monitor. Totally missed that stitching error when I nominated it --NJR_ZA (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tend to agree with A Savin --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 09:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Tomer T (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles de Maigny Bontemps Louvre MR1729 transpa1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2012 at 16:06:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pierre Bontemps - Photographed, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and rare sample of french Renaissance funeral sculpture. Charles de Maigny, the dead man, is represented sitting, asleep. Ca. 1557, Louvre Museum. The background color was selected from the original one.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good for QI and FP likewise, a usage would be desirable. - A.Savin 17:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a subject expert; but I wonder whether the lighting is more perfect on File:Tombeau_de_Charles_de_Maigny_MR_1729.jpg used at Pierre Bontemps. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dirt and dust has been cleaned out since 2006...--Jebulon (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK; and is it due to that this version looks a bit whitened? I appreciate the more resolution though. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, post processing only for background (masking, selection of part of the real color of background for the mask). Usual slight level improvements for the object itself. The statue is now very close to a window, and it is very white and clean. Better view and details (see all the engravings) in full resolution indeed--Jebulon (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Support ; thanks for the info. I already downloaded and compared both images(quite usual if similar images exist) and noticed the extra details in your work; only doubtful regarding the colors. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It is only at full res that the exceptionality of this image comes through. The detail is well captured. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 15:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Early Christian Funerary inscription.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2012 at 13:58:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kleuske - uploaded by Kleuske - nominated by Kleuske -- Kleuske (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kleuske (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, low definition and lacks global focus ... --Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fontanella di Sotto il Monte Giovanni XXIII al tramonto.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2012 at 13:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Martino Ghisleni - uploaded by Martino Ghisleni - nominated by Martino Ghisleni -- Martino Ghisleni (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martino Ghisleni (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where is the feature ? Sorry but this is subjective, and no subject has sufficient light.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark--David საქართველო 09:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Historis acheronta acheronta MHNT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2012 at 19:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. --Cayambe (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, as usual. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you to Citron --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent ... as usual. -- Achird (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- For science/educationnal purpose (and the picture quality).--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chromatic aberration, definitely not sharp focus, and considering that this is a studio shot it is a serious photographic quality issue. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you honestly believe what you said, by including it here, after what happened in your nomination, does a real disservice to your reputation. Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I said is true, look at the image. What hapened to my nomination is just that it got voted down. My reputation? It stands on its own, on my work, not on somebody´s saliva. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Truth can't be a matter of opinion. Your opinion here appears influenced by the result of your nomination. I don't know if that is the truth; if it is, then your actions are just wrong as your opinion on the quality of this image, as evidenced by all these other people's votes. If it is not the truth, then you can proudly hold your head high as you use that saliva to spit into the wind. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 09:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Inside Liverpool Anglican Church.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2012 at 16:39:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by --Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC) - uploaded by --Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC) - nominated by --Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why uncategorized? - A.Savin 16:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overtreatment, and overexposure of the central window. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose + several stitching errors, and some CA.--Jebulon (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Archaeo. Also purple fringing and red/cyan CAs. The roof looks very unsharp in relation to the lower part. Top crop could be better. Too many details which make it not suitable fo FP imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info To commet on your points (thanks for the review) : oversexposure of central window and roof unsharp is a simple choice not affecting the overall composition effect I intended. Good exposure of central window would have been either darker image OR real overtreatment. For the chomatic aberrations, it come from the low light interpretation by the sensor, and maybe a bit of treatment. It could be remove artificially and eventually I will propose another version. I agree on the stiching errors, CA and per fe will remove the nomination. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Too many errors for a featured picture--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loxodonta africana South Luangwa National Park (1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2012 at 14:07:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Geoff Gallice - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 14:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 14:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The featured part is here, but the light/shadow on the subjects could be better. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great :)--David საქართველო 09:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Me like... Kleuske (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pity the baby is in shadow, but overall a definite FP --NJR_ZA (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 15:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

Set nomination: Turgot map of Paris, Kyoto University Library, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 April 2012 at 21:22:00 (UTC)

Info created by Louis Bretez and Claude Lucas - uploaded by Robert.Allen - nominated by Paris 16
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 15 Mpx × 20 = 300 Mpx map, really fun.--Claus (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 00:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Great! Yann (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high quality of this very well known map. Great woooow factor to me.--Jebulon (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support My city ! --Citron (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, MY city !--Jebulon (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – wonderful! Regards, Kjetil_r 19:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Tomer T (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castelloplan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2012 at 12:02:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Redraft from 1916 of the Castello Plan New Amsterdam in 1660

Info created by John Wolcott Adams (1874–1925) and I.N. Phelps Stokes (1867–1944) - uploaded by P. S. Burton - nominated by Elekhh -- ELEKHH^T 12:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ELEKHH^T 12:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Funny view of Manhattan, but relative little historical value: it is 1916 design, not a 1660 one. Confusion is possible.--Jebulon (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Jovian Eye _storm 13:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neopithecops zalmora in love by Kadavoor.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2012 at 09:29:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV, good detail level. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 16:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jovian Eye _storm 13:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very sharp and interesting moment. I would have 'digitalized' the shaddow on the background of the image to enhance the balance of the picture.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make an attempt? Jkadavoor (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ~~Again butterflies mating...~~--Jebulon (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC) Not a very good argument, per Paolo Costa's nomination below. I was a bit angry, probably... But here I think there is a green cast, so I don't remove my oppose.--Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How could one be angry because of a nomination? This isn't a entertainment channel for long-stay residents so I expect a constantly neutral point of view - everybody should have the same chances regardless of the subsequent topic. Best regards  Richard  [®]  17:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Who was angry "because of a nomination" ? Did I wrote this ? I think I don't need lessons, furthermore, about the constantly neutral point of view you expect. It is valuable here in FPC to oppose only because of the topic. But yes, everybody should have the same chance, because everybody has the right to nominate any picture he wants. Best regards.--Jebulon (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think no green cast; only more darkness to avoid overexposing of the wings. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Composition. 2 tight crop and lacking quality (artefacts, overexposed areas, etc.) Best regards  Richard  [®]  17:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tighter crop at bottom is as advised by reviewers in QI to remove unfocused leaf part as much as possible. I tried my best to avoid overexposure; but some light was falling on the wings of the female. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding artefacts, could anybody gift me a good camera? :) Jkadavoor (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are using you existing camera's best settings? Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, this shot is with the help of a cheap DCR 250 closeup glass in front of my pany. Don't be confused with the less pixels; it makes vignetting above 5MP when attached. -- Please see this discussion too. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support all in all pleasing --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Nice to me --Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:View from Utvikfjellet in Gloppen, 2011 August - 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2012 at 12:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A view towards Votedalen from Utvikfjellet in Gloppen, Sogn og Fjordane, Norway in 2011 August. Created, uploaded and nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Ximonic (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Per Alchemist-hp's earlier advice I ended up increasing the contrast and lowering some levels a little. --Ximonic (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support it looks now better for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support now --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love nature scenery. A nice pic, with EV (annotated), interesting light and colors. Also sharp enough for me. Featurable. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:New Jersey Skyline from Battery Park NY - cropped.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2012 at 02:42:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Paolo Costa (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Cropped and sharpened as suggested, also noise reducted on the sky. --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose impressive scene and I wish I could be there, but it's simply not sharp enough and I'd prefer an increased panoramic crop (too much boring space at top and possibly at bottom). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose difference between sky colors divide the picture in 2... passed this impression, globally low definition. The scene is still great, but image quality is missing.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition and colors are fine, as for my part the picture should offer more sharpness (ironed by denoiser) to raise it into the FP catalogue.  Richard  [®]  16:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Didgeridoo street player.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2012 at 17:27:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noel Feans - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Excellent composition and lightning. But I am not sure about the color.--Claus (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be more precise? Tomer T (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is the contrast too high? The colours do not look right to me, otherwise fine. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to improve it a bit. Tomer T (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question What has happened to the colour? Snowmanradio (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The contrast was reduced and the saturation was also reduced a bit. Tomer T (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment What has the Flickr photographer done to the image? I suspect that this image has been processed by the Flickr photographer and as a consequence this image should not become an FA, because of excessive processing. The same Flickr photographer seems to modify a lot of his images; see this highly processed image of a car. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I saw that he does processing in many images (that shouldn't disqualify all his images). I don't think the processing in this image is so harsh. After my edit, I don't think color manipluation is signifcant. Tomer T (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not the first person to comment on the colours in this image. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I know, I have nothing against you... I didn't see comments referring specifically to the edited version. What do you think about its colors? Tomer T (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the levels here. Also, good composition without distracting elements. - A.Savin 22:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Old version was restored. The edit was uploaded in a different file, and shown as alternative. Tomer T (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being picky I'd go for a version in between :) However I do like the composition overall so Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either, but leaning alt. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support both; prefer original. They usually wear colorful, eye catching cloths. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt version. This is a very good picture. Nice composition, nice angle. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed flickr stuff. พ.s. 05:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wetenschatje. Good composition, technically OK, but the colour saturation is unneeded and ugly. --Claritas (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In both versions? Tomer T (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the second version is much better, but there are still issues with overexposure in the background, I'm Neutral. --Claritas (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So please change your first vote Tomer T (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I understand it, we're voting on the first image, not the alt. My position is quite clear to anyone who counts the vote. --Claritas (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The vote is on both of them, see this for example. Tomer T (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed.  Richard  [®]  18:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt. --Jovian Eye _storm 13:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

The chosen alternative is: File:Didgeridoo street player-2.jpg

File:Phrictus quinqueparitus (Puerto Viejo, CR).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2012 at 15:06:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Geoff Gallice - uploaded by Concerto - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 15:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 15:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting lantern bug/lantern fly. Composition is a bit average 4 me.  Richard  [®]  15:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Colorfull picture, subject is ok. The back has some catchy flaws for the eye... which are not corrected by composition.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image is excellent. If you look well, the animal has two options, both open wings the color is very bright and it is a call to the watch. If the upper wings are closed, it will blend into the background and it is very hard to see. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop. Gidip (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The insect looks magnificent! The crop is too tight though. I also think that some lines and other elements behind the creature are somewhat distracting to my eye. --Ximonic (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tighter crop is an issue for works from Flickr. What we can do? Satisfy with the available or request the author for a better version? Jkadavoor (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Gallice replied to my flickr mail that he is ready to send a better file and I replied: "You can create an account at commons.wikimedia.org and upload the image by clicking on the link 'Upload a new version of this file' under 'file history' at commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phrictus_quinqueparitus_(Puerto_Viejo,_CR).jpg; alternately you can make a fresh upload by clicking on 'Upload file' from the commons home page and let me know." Am I right? Or you can contact him directly. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting Geoff. I don't have a flickr account and have not been in touch with him. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support--David საქართველო 09:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ximonic --Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 08:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Squirrel - G. Nervi.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2012 at 15:32:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by S.Massa -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 15:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 15:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but great composition, appart from the head not in focus and the shadow too much prononced (i oppose mainly for the first reason)--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, certainly no FP. Focus on the tail instead on the head, white balance problems, but first of all this extremely disturbing shadow are no-go. - A.Savin 18:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadow too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:20120303 erotic zoophilia Lakshmana Temple Khajuraho India (panoramic version).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2012 at 11:36:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:ggia - uploaded by User:ggia - nominated by User:ggia -- Ggia (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version has not DOF, it is not overexposed and being more panoramic gives better overview of the sculpture (comparing to the previous nomination). Please no-hate content (censorship) votes. This image has high EV, dating from 954 and it belongs to Khajuraho UNESCO world heritage site. It is a sculpture.. and it obvious that it does not abusing animals or supports the abuse of animals, neither represents some sexual preferences of the uploader or somebody who will support it. As far as I know in FPC there is no censorship and this image is not related to Futanari or any other similar. IMO it has more EV and more reasons to be featured (UNESCO heritage) rather than Futanari if this is the question. Ggia (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality picture, interesting and unusual topic. Far much better than the previous nomination. High encyclopedic value. FP to me. My previous hesitations were only due to lack of technical quality, which is not the case here.--Jebulon (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info some info about this scene [8]. Ggia (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is certainly a worthwhile picture, but the information provided on the page is rather sparse, to say the very least. Basic things are omitted: Whose temple is it (I guessed Lakshmi, but i'm not sure)? Who are depicted? What is the significance, the story behind that sculpture? Especially in images like this, context is as important as te image itself. Without it it's no more than "sculpture of guy fucking a horse"). Kleuske (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info the image has detailed gps information.. you can see that it is south of the ~~Lakshmi~~ Lakshmana temple (read also the description it is mentioned that).. the link [9] has some more info.. if you want read more about this sculpure from other sources and give more details in the description.. this image is also in books about the sculpures of Khajuraho. The word "fucking" is not a word that it should be used in the description.. my description is more neutral and encyclopedic. Ggia (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi or Lakshmana temple? I think Lakshmana is correct. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is Lakshmana temple.. it is already mentioned in the description.. Ggia (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said Lakshmi temple in the above info as a reply to Kleuske; correct it. Jkadavoor (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, in the description it is correct. Ggia (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The story behind these sculptures: "The Khajuraho temples do not contain sexual or erotic art inside the temple or near the deities; however, some external carvings bear erotic art. Also, some of the temples that have two layers of walls have small erotic carvings on the outside of the inner wall. There are many interpretations of the erotic carvings. They portray that, for seeing the deity, one must leave his or her sexual desires like these outside the temple." I prefer the image of File:Khajuraho-Lakshmana_Temple_erotic_detal1.JPG than the current nomination. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image that you are talking about is another image.. it can be another nomination.. the quality is not so good but why you don't try to nominate it as FPC? What is the connection of the other image with this one - why do we discuss it here? it is a comlete different image. The sculptures of Khajuraho have a lot of sexual behaviour (in all kinds).. have you been there? who says that they are not containing erotic scenes? Ggia (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above quote is from the wiki page as reply to Kleuske; if it is wrong, the page should be corrected. Further, it says no such arts inside the temple; only outside walls. We are only featuring one best image of similar arts; so I mentioned the other one. And I said photo of that art; not that photo. ( I have no oppositions but advised to learn more about the subject before making a nomination.) Jkadavoor (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote "Erotic detail (zoophilia) from the base of Lakshmana Temple in Khajuraho (India)" in the description page.. it is outside the temple. Look also in the GPS info - it is very clear that it is in the south part of the temple, in the basement outside. This image is unique, due to the time that it is made, very eccentric with a lot of EV. Ggia (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - images of people having sex with animals should not be featured. --Claritas (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info sorry but this is a clear hate-content vote. Ggia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entitled to think that we shouldn't disseminate pictures of zoophilia. This sort of behaviour should be stigmatised as unethical, please do not describe my vote as a "hate content vote". --Claritas (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that I am a person that support zoophilia or abuse of animals? Of course I am not. If you like this kind of censorship in the content please go ahead, discuss with the community and make new rules in the FPC. Ggia (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just think this image is inherently ugly. FPs should create a sense of astonishment ("wow!") not disgust. --Claritas (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info this is 3-D representation of the place where this picture is from 360-degree panoramic image. Ggia (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support High encyclopedic value. Erotic sculptures of Khajuraho temples are ones of the most astonishing works of art.--Vassil (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It's pretty much a snapshot, not an exceptional photo at all for illustrating Khajuraho art. Its sole claim to featurability rests on its unusual content, but that has limited illustrative value. I agree with Claritas: it's unnecessarily objectionable. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Vassil and others. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon and Vassil. Yann (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SteveStrummer -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Óðinn (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Harp.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 09:47:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The basic structural elements and terminology of a en:harp

Info created by Martin Kraft - uploaded by Martin Kraft - nominated by Martin Kraft -- Martin Kraft (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Kraft (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Good, it passes W3C Validation, but the text have been converted to paths and that will make localisation hard (See Commons:SVG). Image should also be included somewhere in the Category:SVG tree. My main reason for opposing though is that there is no WOW factor and only limited educational value here. It is a relatively simple rendering of a relatively well known object. --NJR_ZA (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info I tried to fit the SVG-citeria of WP, which suggest to convert al texts to paths. Although I see the benefits plain text has for auto translation, I doubt that it leads to the same typographic quality. For legibility reasons I aligned the texts and lines, which might be doomed during auto translation, due to the different text lengths. Also there are sligtht differences in structure and names between the languages. That's why I prefer a manual translations, like this:

German original
Manually translated englisch version

Plus the image is already included in the Category:SVG tree and I don't consider its educational value to be limited. What else could this image do, but demonstrating the basic structural elements and terminology of a harp?! --Martin Kraft (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I included it in the SVG tree after writing my comment. I think it would be more valuable if it was more detailed, with tuning pins, bridge pins, sharping levers included. As I said, not a bad SVG, but personally I just don't think it is FP material. --NJR_ZA (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tuning pins are already labelled. But this pins, the bridge pins and sharping levers are so tiny and so close to each other, that it might be hard to keep them appart, if they were all illustrated and labelled in an illustration of this size. IMHO the tuning mechanic of an harp is so komplex and divers, that it's better to illustrate it with another close up garphic or (as in german Wikipedia) a series of photographs. --Martin Kraft (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Tomer T (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interior of San Thome Basilica.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2012 at 05:24:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jovianeye
Support -- Jovian Eye _storm 05:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 11:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Telemaque_MySon 11:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very good image quality, but the persons standing there are disturbing, see annotations. Dipankan001 (talk)
- Comment I had only a few minutes to make this image. It was taken after the evening mass. I tried to get the shot without anybody and waited for some more time but as soon as the scene was cleared of people the church authorities began switching of the lights! I dont find the people really disturbing because, firstly: they are all praying, secondly: nobody is facing the camera, thirdly: There is no motion blur or ghosting despite a 1.3 second exposure. --Jovian Eye _storm 13:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~- Neutral The woman on the right distracts me, but good. SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)~~ Sorry, just read above. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A few people are OK (than an abandoned church :)). Jkadavoor (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because they are praying and therefore are part of the scenery, the few people don't disturb me... except the one with his head over that of the woman at right. That one should be removed imo. Support nevertheless.--Cayambe (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Szajci ^pošta 06:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 07:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Rhein und Promenade Koeln-Muelheim.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2012 at 11:17:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by A.Savin 11:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 11:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it :) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support somewhat-disturbing crop on the right, but in general quite nice. Tomer T (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Nice (too much sky). --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jovian Eye _storm 03:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition carefully chosen and very detailed. A bit too much sky for my taste. --Cayambe (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the right hand crop looses it for me I'm afraid --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support My first thought was: what an idiosyncratic composition with much water and a truncated pylon but the more I look at the picture the more I prefer this kind of framing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wladyslaw. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Chambord Castle Roof.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2012 at 17:01:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Telemaque_MySon - uploaded by Telemaque_MySon - nominated by Telemaque_MySon -- Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great perspective -- Martin Kraft (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 04:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
temporary: Neutral "Strong effect on eyes, difficult to interpret as 'natural' ~~landscape~~" architecture view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in part per Alchemist-hp but it lacks real focus for me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info This picture, for the proposed 'featured part' I intended, aims to capture several components of architecture at once. In this sense, it does not pretend to be a landscape.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I corrected my comment. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, ~~overprocessed~~ unnatural look. Tomer T (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose underexposed (esp. on the right), noisy, chromatic aberrations --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is not overprocessed , it is wide angle with polarizer filter. For the underexposed, it is on purpose, and if you take time to look at the composition, right side does not need light in my lense it would be a multiple FP issue then. For the noisy part, it can be corrected for the sky.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't say it is overprocessed, but that it has an overprocessed look. Anyways, I changed my comment accordingly. Tomer T (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What was gained in the way of drama was lost in the lack of detail due to lighting choice. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. At pixel-peeping magnifications, there are flaws, which should be correctable. There's a lot of noise. Did you sharpen this, which amplifies the noise? Is it getting sharpened when you "save as jpeg"? I know in Lightroom you can apply a mask to the sharpening tool to avoid creating noise; don't know about Photoshop. Also there is CA in the corners that Photoshop should be able to deal with. Colin (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arabian Peninsula Flowers - 2012.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 05:01:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Neogeolegend - uploaded by Neogeolegend - nominated by Neogeolegend -- Neogeolegend (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Neogeolegend (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the size is far below 2 megapixel  Richard  [®]  06:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

could any make a vote. what happened to you people! Do I have to be your friend to vote for me!
- Maybe you didn't understand what Richard wrote. The guidelines require that a featured picture's size will be at least 2,000,000 pixels. This picture is 819 × 525 (429,975 pixels overall), so this can't be featured. Tomer T (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cetorhinus maximus Gervais.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2012 at 16:29:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gervais & Boulart - uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing special, pretty much like any other 19th century biological drawing. Resolution good, but not exceptional. --Claritas (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing special ? It's a lovely shark ! --Citron (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion, feel free to disagree. --Claritas (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke.--Citron (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Citron (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alain Delon.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2012 at 18:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivan Besedin - uploaded by Алый Король - nominated by Алый Король -- Алый Король (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Алый Король (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the crop on the top--Llorenzi (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: below 2 mega pixels Tomer T (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alvin Toffler 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 15:55:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Vern Evans - uploaded by Алый Король - nominated by Алый Король -- Алый Король (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Алый Король (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: far below 2 megapixel Regards  Richard  [®]  16:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pont Neuf, Paris 16 October 2011.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 09:07:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rog01 (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where there is light, there is also shadow - but - isn't the latter not 2 dominating? Best regards  Richard  [®]  09:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would say per 'too much light contrast with no FP purpose'--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aurora borealis above Storfjorden and the Lyngen Alps in moonlight, 2012 March.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2012 at 16:53:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Okay, so... This is a picture of a fjord with the Lyngen Alps in moonlight with a Jupiter-Venus conjuction with the Northern Lights with a random man with a flashlight on the right. Taken around midnight in 2012 March. I don't know if this could be a featured picture but the scenario sure was pretty difficult to capture and the epicness of the moment almost ridiculous. Cheers =) ! Provided, uploaded and nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximonic (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit darkish at the left, but lovely athmosphere otherwise. I really like it, - A.Savin 17:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great night picture.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, incl. wow effect. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow NJR_ZA (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very difficult to take a photo of a non-lighted place and so there have to be quality issues (in this case f/3.5 and ISO 640 are concealed by stitching and scaling – but ok). The scene is wow, really... A nice one, needed in the FP gallery. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with all above. Awesome pic. --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW ! --Vassil (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support!!!!--Jebulon (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. Regards  Richard  [®]  12:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great --Schnobby (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great --Böhringer (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Norway! --Stryn (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't want to sound too much like the nitpicker (which I am for sure) but I can't help but thinking the wide angle shots (with extreme distorsion) adds more drama to the northern lights kind of shots (something closer to a worm view). Footprints are a bit of a mood killer too, it almost looks like a very common and busy place... Now the WOW factor remains for sure, especially for me, who never have witnessed such things. - Benh (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really excellent. Congratulations! -- MJJR (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job ! --Citron (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done! --ELEKHH^T 19:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just great. --Kadellar (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 08:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jovian Eye _storm 14:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you think the car at right could be cloned out ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It is bit risky and I often notice repeating patterns from cloning quite easily so I usually don't want to do that to a photograph. I think the car probably belongs to the man with a flashlight. During the spent time in Troms I found out that I wasn't alone photographing the places since many foreigners seemed to have come looking for the northern lights. I also got photos of much brighter Auroras but maybe I wasn't in as good spot as here and maybe the overall quality is not as good as here. (Taking good photos of Auroras is not very easy as they move quite fast and appear suddenly! But I think it's always worth trying.) --Ximonic (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wonderful. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I love it! Best regards, Kjetil_r 20:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Very nice. What is the strange object in the foreground at the waterfront (Please have a look, I added a note to the object position) ? -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ”strange object” is a man with a flashlight. I don't know what was he looking for there but he was scanning the place with the light quite some time. Probably looking for himself in the darkness. --Ximonic (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 32 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Lake Votna Hordaland Norway 3015 6 7 fused.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2012 at 21:32:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lot more impressive than the previous one --Martin Kraft (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Da ist nix zu meckern, - A.Savin 22:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An amazing landscape, but an unexceptional shoot with curious colours and lacking sharpness (look at the gras and the foreground) and a poor light situation. It's a pity. Sorry but a EOS 5D Mark II with this lens can make much more better pictures. Look at the pictures of Miguel Bugallo, he has the same camera. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've to agree with Wladyslaw, sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Only because I prefer the other one, which should be featured. This one gives me a feeling that something is missing on the sides, I think a panoramic image would have been better. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to the descriptions, these are different lakes, so I don't think the images should be compared and examined according to a comparison between them. Tomer T (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake. Will change to neutral since I still don't like the crop on the sides. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I like the overall effect. The featured content, too. I don't like some background features if we zoom => reduce resolution, maybe ?--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 09:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support sharpness is not too good at this shot, yet i like the mood. "reduce resolution"... what an outstanding remark. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This image isn't synthetic sharpened. This is a true tripod made image from three exposures combined via photomatix to the visible one. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing side crops, per Paolo Costa. --Avenue (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a bad photo, but not featured IMHO: Sharpness, lightning not good enough. Regards, Kjetil_r 20:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:PL - Tuszów Narodowy - kościół Matki Bożej Wspomożenia Wiernych - Kroton 001.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2012 at 12:21:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kroton - uploaded by Kroton - nominated by Kroton -- Kroton (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kroton (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice image however the overall composition is fairly random in terms of seeking FP. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For composition reasons like Herbythyme . --Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Maybe you could test a new crop without the first band of grass at the bottom and remove also some trees in the left.[reply]

New version[edit]

Info created by Kroton - uploaded by Kroton - nominated by Kroton -- Kroton (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support; prefer this. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support; prefer this too --Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I like it--Llorenzi (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; Composition still doesn't feel perfect, and little wow effect. Definite QI though! Freedom to share (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Service dessert Victoria Franz-Joseph Vienna inv 191.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2012 at 22:50:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Herbert Minton & Co. factory, Stoke-on-Trent, GB, 1851 - photographed, uploaded and nominated by me --Jebulon (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Porcelain centrepiece for dessert creams, 1851 Great Exhibition in London, gift from Queen Victoria of Great-Britain to Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria. Please have a look to the file description page for precise informations.

Support This complete rework of a previously withdrawn nomination of the same object -- Jebulon (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as before, and now even more. Tomer T (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support version is better now.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super! --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the lower part ~~of a photostudio shoot~~ is too shadowed for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You know better than me what a photostudio shoot is. This is not. This is a picture taken in a museum, with museum lighting conditions, through a glass, without flash nor tripod...--Jebulon (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, but I don't gave you a contra :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 17:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann (talk • contribs)
Support very nice. --Claritas (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Upleadon Church.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2012 at 06:24:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Saffron Blaze - uploaded by Saffron Blaze - nominated by Saffron Blaze -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Basically I would say 'Cut the tree in the right'. Maybe you can enlighten digitally this tree. Also several minor catchy details that bother me. Good picture still.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ; agree with Telemaque MySon on brightening the tree. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks both for the constructive comments. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claritas (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support You are so lucky with the weather. Colin (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Gyps fulvus 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2012 at 10:10:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 10:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Ok you got it, the bird attitude, and the sharp eye, very good focus point. But to me the composition is average. Upper left bokeh is too much eye catching to me. The crop on the left part of the image too.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute birdy. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ a bit overexposed on the head fur, and noisy on the wings. Beautiful picture though. Sorry, Tomer T (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the hint. Correction of head fur done. I think, it's better now. --Llez (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is better. Still noisy on the wings, so I'm ~~Neutral~~. Tomer T (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment chromatic noise in bottom third... surprising at ISO 100. Where does it come from and can you correct it? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know, where it comes from, perhaps the light conditions? I tried already to correct, with little success. Any idea how to correct or can anyone correct these parts? --Llez (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per other "neutral" reviewers...--Jebulon (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info ( Done) I uploaded a new version over the image with a slight reducing of chromatic noise and CA. I think it's better, isn't it? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many thanks for your support! --Llez (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support after Carschten's edit. Tomer T (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support That did the trick. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Merlo bianco.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2012 at 05:21:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Visifra - uploaded by Visifra - nominated by Pierpao -- Pierpao.lo (listening) 05:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pierpao.lo (listening) 05:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nice subjcet and nice photo, but tecnically overexposure, noise and imperfect focus. --T137(talk) 13:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could have withstand the light strong balance and the composition, but the image is definitely low def per lack of sharpness, noise and focus.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phra Nang beach 33.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2012 at 13:19:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 13:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 13:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The subject is interesting, but the composition is too extensive for its lights and shadows distribution... Also think to reduce it to 1000 pixels or less, the over definition is not a good feature.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Amazing place. Will support a cropped version (removing the dark, disturbing area on the right) --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I loved it that way. But there is also another version, without the darker space and with better quality. —kallerna™ 18:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support both. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Support Alt version. --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support both. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I like more the other version --Llorenzi (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support But have to agree with others that the Alt version is better --NJR_ZA (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either, but prefer Alt. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt version. –Makele-90 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt version. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose curved horizon, green cast, crop too tight at top and bottom. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The earth isn't a flat disk ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt version, because of the right part. --Kadellar (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo is beautiful!-- Martino Ghisleni (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support...but in my opinion, it is not an alternative version, but really another picture than the above one !! I think there is a real problem with the rules here.--Jebulon (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prefer alt. --Avenue (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

The chosen alternative is: File:Phra Nang beach panorama edit.jpg

File:Lindos Windmill.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 17:50:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Saffron Blaze - uploaded by Saffron Blaze - nominated by Claritas -- Claritas (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent composition, technically good and an interesting subject with a good background. -- Claritas (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe a bit dark? --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally like the light, it gives the sea a nice colour, and there's good contrast between the dark interior of the windmill and the exterior. --Claritas (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support you make very nice pictures. The bottle (see annotation) you would have to take away. --Böhringer (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interesting too. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky and water are rather naturally polarised as a consequence of the photogrpaher's positon relative to the sun and subject. -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view and good sharpness. - A.Savin 17:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Point Reyes Lighthouse (April 2012).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2012 at 15:15:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I have been in front of my screen with my two hands for nearly 1 minute to try to simulate another cut... but I am still unsure. To me the composition can be seen as dual circular guiding lines. The rest is good photography.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 08:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 19:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I just hope that isn't blood on the rocks. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure but I think blood doesn't stay as red as here for a long time. That's why I guess it's something else. --Ximonic (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Friendly Beaches 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2012 at 10:39:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very nice. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Awesome combination of colors. In this case it was perfect to have gray skies. Horizon is tilted/distorted. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 13:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting , but I would have cropped in order to remove the darky rock on the left and a bit of the bottom. Then It would also have a more 'featured' sense for the beaches part becoming FP (on the right) rather an artistical one at the moment .--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love this kind of long exposure + wide angle shots (I often refer to JJ's page when I want to explain what kind of shot I'd like to invest myself into, not very easy when you live in Paris ...). Support despite the tilt. - Benh (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Szajci ^pošta 06:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sea, rocks, clouds and long exposure times... It gets boring after a while. Kleuske (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read this comment by Paolo Stefano in another nomination. I find it suitable to this situation too. Tomer T (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One is free to find this kind of picture boring, and oppose for that reason. Sorry no, the Paolo Stefano's comment (I was involved in) is not really suitable for this situation, IMO... Any opinions should be free here, could be expressed (if polite), and could justify an oppose vote.--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Every beach is different as every species; but.. but.. this looks much similar to another sunset, so less EV in my opinion. Jkadavoor (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which one? Tomer T (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I mean this is too abstract to represent 'Friendly Beaches Reserve'. The word 'sunset' is just a quote from 'Guidelines for nominators' : "almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others". Further, "beautiful does not always mean valuable." It is beautiful; and not opposing you, only the comparison. Unfortunately I can't see a single picture of that place in the page too. Or I visit a wrong page? Jkadavoor (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Value has its place on the Commons but I always thought that line about beauty not always being valuable was somewhat misplaced. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even Brad Pitt gets bored of looking at Angelina Jolie. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Opinion...;)--Jebulon (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but also I try to judge each image on its own merits. This is a wonderful picture in its own right. Moreover I try to remember this is Commons not en:Wiki. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A very nice picture, I agree. But after a while we feel a bit tired of the cliché and require something better. In this case, the composition would gain from a crop on the bottom. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are "we"? This cliché is maybe only known to devoted constant FP reviewers. We don't choose those images to be featured for us. It is meant for Commons visitors and general Wikimedians. FPs suppose to show the best Commons can offer, and this picture is still among the best we can offer. Commons visitors and "ordinary" Wikimedians will never think looking at this image, that it's boring because it's from a "cliché" member. Tomer T (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ineffective use of the camera's native resolution. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 07:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - since I'm biased. The opposer's reasons are why I don't take this type of photograph any more. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignore that. You can't always satisfy everyone, but this type of pictures are great! Tomer T (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally feel more flooded by the birds than this (they are great, but just personal tastes). And I believe the opposers' argument are a bit over the top. We don't have that many wide angle long exposure shots. Who else but you submit them over here? Hope you'll change your mind. - Benh (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was more that I got sick of taking this sort of shot, rather than anybody else getting sick of them. I even sold my ultra wide lens quite a while ago (year?). JJ Harrison (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not that worried about the clichés. This is kind of a picture which would be a nice wallpaper for desktop for example after shaping aspect ratio. But I don't suggest cropping as a necessary act. A fine picture as it is. --Ximonic (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Tilted--Miguel Bugallo 15:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really easy to fix, and nearly unnoticeable. Tomer T (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info the sea horizon is now „straightened“.

Then

Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 08:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LC-de (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Enrique Bunbury - 15.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2012 at 10:59:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kadellar.
- Info Strong lights towards the audience (backlight shot). --Kadellar (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose didn't like this light effect. Tomer T (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well... no. Yann (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montreal - Olympic Park panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2012 at 12:18:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Paolo Costa (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info File cropped at top and bottom. --Paolo Costa (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support; like this crop. Jkadavoor (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support better than the original version imo - A.Savin 09:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm in too for that alternative. Composition is a biiiit spoiled by unevenness of the sides, but it's great nonetheless. Lighting looks good too. - Benh (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This crop is better composition. Very strange design that sunken space, I wonder if ever used in any way. Does it even have a name? Nevertheless a good quality image. --ELEKHH^T 21:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think this would have been better with the sun at zenith. --Jovian Eye _storm 13:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

The chosen alternative is: File:Montreal - Olympic Park panorama - Cropped version.jpg

File:Moscow at Night from the International Space Station.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2012 at 15:02:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA, uploaded and nominated by Dipankan001 (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't oppose this NASA picture for its uniqueness, but there are some flaws in definition thought.
Comment I was hoping I would love this even more when I opened it but alas I was sorely disappointed by the quality of the image. Moreover, I think the photographer had the focus point on the solar panel. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- does not seems the focus but the motion of the ISS.
Support - Szajci ^pošta 06:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a shame on the low quality. Tomer T (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @annotation: rising (setting @Moscow) of the moon.
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Gildir (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Cotton Bug Dysdercus cingulatus by kadavoor.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2012 at 08:12:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Jkadavoor (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is fine, quality (sharpness, color development, contrast) is far from excellent. I miss all the fine details on the animals which are possible to capture. Regards  Richard  [®]  09:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 09:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Richard. Tomer T (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good --Moonik (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Sharpness is an issue but great picture--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination per above opposes; I wonder how beautiful it will be if with a MP-E 65 :( Jkadavoor (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Motif is to large for this lens, it starts at min 1:1 :-P Best regards and keep on the good work.  Richard  [®]  08:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:B&M Railroad Caboose.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 13:10:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tom Walsh - uploaded by Tom Walsh - nominated by Tom Walsh -- TDW (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TDW (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop above, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Jebulon. Some issue with the lightning choice too. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chromatic abberation, odd pixelation in shadow areas, unfortunate composition. nice mood and subject though - looks worthy for a retry. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK

07:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Nice composition, nice colors! Although I agree that the edge of the roof of the second wagon could be in the picture. --Christoph Michels (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a fine example of what not to do with HDR, i think. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC) -- Comment You should give concrete reasons for your opposition better than being 'partisan' .--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much strange noise or whatsoever in this HRDI. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catopsilia pomona by kadavoor.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 06:23:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Jkadavoor (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to say but this picture offers only mediocre composition, quality, light & size. To pick one out: the light is much 2 harsh, look at the legs they are partially overexposed, or the shadow - he has absolutely no tracing or the leaf which looks unappealing because of the disturbing & overexposed reflections. Best regards  Richard  [®]  09:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is always a pleasure to read this type of through reviews, even though an opposing one. Jkadavoor (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Moonik (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - major issues with this image are the harsh lighting, with overexposure on the leaf, and relatively low resolution. Good focus and composition though, and perhaps a FP. Please edit out the distracting white speck I've flagged in the image notes, and I will support.--Claritas (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The white speck is a piece of spider web. A request is raised in the 'Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop' for these changes. Thanks for the suggestions. Jkadavoor (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They made an attempt (File:Catopsilia_pomona_by_kadavoor_edit.png); please check it too. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would happily support a version with the overexposure on legs reduced: it's important to show the most details possible (e.g., you certainly know that some species have patterns that differentiate males from females on the front legs). --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you (or anybody) help me on this; I've little knowledge in edits. The strong sunlight of Asia is always an issue in my works. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can help you, but only if the original file is not showing 100% blown parts, or at least it holds some info on those apparently white pixels. Sometimes parts seem to be blown but are not. If you send me the original un-edited file, I can see what I can do for you and also try to denoise it to reduce artifacts. I totally understand you with the camera issue. I also have many problems with the unsharp nikkor lenses, and standards are very high with the Canon cameras and lenses around here. But don't give up taking pictures, I would recommend you to use this page to get some awesome feedback as I have got (and actually it's free!), and when you buy a better camera in the future, you'll be an ace, that's the idea. For now, your contributions are very important. There are more than 10.000 known species of day butterflies, thousands of insects and birds, and so on: we need people like you and Archaeo, Llez, JJ Harrison etc. around here :) Just send me the original file, I'll check it out. Paolo1412@hotmail.com. Regards --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sent Original file to through email. Thank you and thanks all for your kind words. I'm not taking much photos now; but not because of the comments. My last work on Flickr was on 22 Non 2011; after that I only uploaded from the archives. And the plus point is that I'm much active here after that. Hope to get back to the rhythm and will try to find new species in my surroundings soon. Thanks. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Denoised background, and adjusted levels a bit. Sent the file back to your mail. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because of the quality, which is really not good enough here. Not your fault, but the camera stretches to its limits (?) and the result are strong JPG artifacts (including a loss of details). Lighting could be better, too, as mentioned above, sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely need a better camera. :( Not taking any photos now because I lost the enthusiasm with that little toy; just transferring (after uncropping) old works from flickr. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't stop. Your images have been wonderful additions to the Commons. They might not all be FP but they are beautiful and quite valuable as well. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new camera (DSLR) would be better, but I agree Saffron Blaze. Don't stop just because of your camera, please :-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as Richard & kaʁstn --Böhringer (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others--Miguel Bugallo 23:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I'll have to oppose as per Richard Freedom to share (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info The image is updated by an edit by Paolo Costa to reduce the jpeg artifacts and overexposure. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. But the general problems are still there and visible, so I retain my vote. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:London Eye - 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 13:59:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kadellar - uploaded by Kadellar - nominated by

* Support -- 46.120.8.164 13:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Please log in to vote.--Jebulon (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak oppose -- I would crop the lateral right part to remove the far right ship that currently create a distortion in the composition of the picture. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - does not show the whole subject, distortion. --Claritas (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 08:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parc Floral de Paris - Nelumbo lutea 001.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 14:16:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moonik - uploaded by Moonik - nominated by Moonik -- Moonik (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moonik (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support-- Great for the greeny vegetation, but the photographer is not a featured part. (I have nothing against him).--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry but I can't see anything featurable here. The presence of the photographer (anyone notable?) adds some ambiguity to the nomination as we are no longer sure of what the subject of the photo is... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice photo for illustrating the topic of botanical photography, but no "wow". Technically fine, and certainly a QI. --Claritas (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angels Landing and the Great White Throne.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2012 at 01:20:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info - all by me -- Óðinn (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Óðinn (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the informative value is quite good in this picture and the textures and surfaces on the rocks are very interesting. Something in the overall composition makes me hesitate... Therefore I think it's quite not a FP. I believe I saw some white fringes caused by sharpening at some edges too. Usually photograph editors want to avoid the kind of fringes. --Ximonic (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --very good...! -- Martino Ghisleni (talk)
Support -- Soerfm (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aspendos Basilica Antalya Turkey.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 10:04:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Saffron Blaze - uploaded by Saffron Blaze - nominated by Saffron Blaze -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- There are versions without the child but you completely lose scale without her. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interesting. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- There is a lack of depth, which makes it difficult to differentiate the front wall from the rest of the building. I also find the crop a bit too narrow. --Christoph Michels (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Welcome back from your year of abscence. Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnan garra 13:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Óðinn (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Morgan Pressel - Flickr - Keith Allison (12).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 05:00:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Keith Allison from Owings Mills, USA - uploaded by Yjenith - nominated by Claus
Support -- Claus (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-- Bokeh is difficult for me --Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I thought the subject isolation and the creamy bokeh really added to the image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - she seems to be wearing a polo shirt, which detracts from the educational value of this image. --Claritas (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment leg exposure is a necessary, not a sufficient condition. Limited EV for articles on legs, perhaps good for exposure of legs in sport. --Claritas (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - please would you explain about legs, polo shirt, education and EV relation if any? Thanks.
    - Sorry, the "leg" thing is just a joke. I genuinely feel that a featured picture of a golfer should show them wearing a golf shirt. It's the uniform of the game. --Claritas (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also apologise. In the previous nomination of this individual the shirt she was wearing (same one actually) had an emboidered polo player displayed prominently on the front, which seemed rather odd and amusing. The leg bit just became a running joke poking fun at ourselves not the player. I can see though how it could be construed otherwise. I deleted my comment here while leaving the support vote as the polo player isn't a distraction. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It meets criteria for FP imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a girl playing golf - no Wow factor to me. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Saffron and Claritas: Please consider striking or removing the objectifying leg jokes, they are unbecoming of the FPC review process. --99of9 (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a girl, so I can make sexist jokes as much as I like. --Claritas (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - focus on what we say is better than who we are.
    - Just a note to say the above reply was added by an IP, not by me. Although I suppose I do agree with the sentiment, I can also understand Claritas taking more liberty since she is also a woman/girl. --99of9 (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition of a notable sportswoman. Technical quality is sufficient, but not outstanding. Certainly amongst our best sporting shots (we don't have many featured). --99of9 (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 99of9 --Jovian Eye _storm 03:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Soerfm (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Young Indian girl, Raisen district, Madhya Pradesh.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2012 at 07:18:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Yann (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Young Indian girl from an adivasi tribe, Raisen district, Madhya Pradesh, India. Yann (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The thumb looks great. Very nice light, expression, composition, colors. A real pity for the cropped finger and the face which could have been a little sharper. But yes, totally featurable imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very natural --Schnobby (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Image naturelle et belle luminosité.—Bill william compton^Talk 15:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support her expression does it. Gnan garra 13:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:30 Doradus, Tarantula Nebula.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2012 at 12:16:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA, uploaded and nominated by Dipankan001 (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really great .--Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info file description is way too long. Should be shortened. --ELEKHH^T 20:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks oversaturated. --Paolo Costa (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think it is over saturated. Can you explain? Dipankan001 (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, therefore I'm not opposing, but I got that impression. I wanted to know if you have a less zoomed-in file, to see if the blue comes from the nebula material. Because space background usually looks more blackish. Blue is really intense here, that's why it looks O.S. to me. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you've a misconception - Stars which are very hot, especially near Nebulas shine brightly and give out blue light. Small stars, like our star, is not that hot and does not give blue light. Dipankan001 (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Cielo strano a Fontanella di Sotto il Monte Giovanni XXIII.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 12:58:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Martino Ghisleni - uploaded by Martino Ghisleni - nominated by Martino Ghisleni -- Martino Ghisleni (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martino Ghisleni (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting coincidence between the clouds and the tower scene. The picture seems to be underexposed and tilted towards right however. --Ximonic (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exposure, and also focal point ...--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crab-eating Macaque tree.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 09:30:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... it would be awesome when seeing this animal eating a crab. Regards  Richard  [®]  09:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 09:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo. And the tall-thin portrait orientation is particularly effective for WP infoboxes. -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I don't know if low light head is intentional, but it gives some dynamic to the picture, and therefore the composition becomes greater even .--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Any possibility for a georeference and/or EXIF info? พ.s. 07:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken in the Lalbagh Botanical Gardens --Muhammad (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Asante. พ.s. 15:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pose and good quality. I like the whole composition too. Top foreground branch was close to ruin it ;) - Benh (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Pigeon Point Lighthouse and tide pools 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2012 at 11:37:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 11:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot see any special. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012-03-25 00-26-31-uma-4fov-9f-5s-ISO640-72d-27o-ann.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 14:12:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to much diffuse light at the bottom; the stars at the corners are showing clear caustics. --LC-de (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, absolutly useless filename. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Familien Waagepetersen 1830 by Wilhelm Bendz.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2012 at 10:42:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown - uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice digitalization with good resolution. --Claritas (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Przykuta → [edit] 21:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone has changed the colour during the nomination process. Now it appears cooler. Any opinions on that? I would think that since the museum has released the best possible version it has, the image should not require alterations. --Urbandweller (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree with Urbandweller! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reverted the good faith edit as it was not provided with any rationale. It is just my opinion, but images under FPC should not be changed unless the change is requested by the author/nominator. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I completely agree, thank you. --Urbandweller (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urbandweller (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Frankfurt-Germany skyline with river Main bridge Holbeinsteg and ship excellence royal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 16:55:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by, uploaded and nominated by NorbertNagel -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-- QI for me. For FP, I dont know... Composition crop at the left vs right... Multiple features (bridge, boat and skycrappers) but their relationship is not obvious.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this places, you got to be very careful with the skycrappers!!! They crap on everything! --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Telemaque. Not FP for me. Tomer T (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think a crop across the top and right side would help? There are quite a few nice elements here and its good quality. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe. By the way, we already have 4 FPs of these buildings, although all of them are night shots. Tomer T (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salle de lecture vue d'ensemble.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2012 at 21:59:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by BHVP - nominated by Paris 16
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - disappointingly unsharp at full resolution. --Claritas (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness looks fine to me. Great picture! InverseHypercube 08:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Definition could be better, but the composition and light are quite satistying.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice at thumbnail. Would have been much better if shot at a higher f-number with a tripod. --Jovian Eye _storm 14:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Tautochrone curve.gif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2012 at 19:09:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rocchini and Geek3 - nominated by InverseHypercube -- InverseHypercube 19:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- InverseHypercube 19:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pierpao.lo (listening) 05:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question -How can the speed be decreasing with time? Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. The acceleration is decreasing. InverseHypercube 00:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of the blue vectors/arrows attached to each point? bamse (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acceleration. As the balls roll down the curve towards the horizontal, gravity exerts a lesser force. InverseHypercube 16:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick since this is the third time it annoys me: exerts a smaller resultant force. Kleuske (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent value. It illustrates a concept that most people find hard to visualize and challenges a common misperception. Reaction of most people will at first glance be "Huh? That's not right". The description on the image page can however be improved with a brief definition of the physics behind the action as well as interwiki links. --NJR_ZA (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a brief description. InverseHypercube 19:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as is. The acceleration vectors are superfluous and misleading in passing the message that speed is decreasing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I don't get that impression. As well, the graph on the top right shows that the acceleration is decreasing and the velocity becoming constant, as s is arc length and becomes linear with time. InverseHypercube 16:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found the acceleration vectors interesting. I would not remove them. It adds a lot to the file. Now, for FP I'm not sure, it's really kinda little sized. --Paolo Costa (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is the resolution so low? I find myself wanting to squint at it, and the file size is only 102 KB. --Avenue (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose current version for low resolution. The sudden end is a bit jarring too. I think a version showing them carry on up the continuation of the cycloid (i.e. adding the mirror image of what's there already), and even showing them roll back to the start, would be more appealing visually. --Avenue (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Physics is too tough to me. :( Jkadavoor (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea, it is well illustrated, but I have a problem with the acceleration vectors, as this vector only shows the tangential component of the acceleration. The normal component is missing, and since it is shown as a vector I find it misleading that the component which results in a curved trajectory is not shown. From the figure you get the impression that the time derivative of the speed (the magnitude of the velocity vector) is the magnitude of the acceleration vector , i.e.,

|\mathbf {a} |={\frac {d|\mathbf {v} |}{dt}}

,

but that is not correct when the direction of the velocity vector changes as here. Really,

\mathbf {a} ={\frac {d\mathbf {v} }{dt}}

(as vectors), and that is not what is illustrated: A normal component to the acceleration is missing, otherwise the trajectories would not be curved. Take the more familar example of uniform circular motion as example. Here the speed is constant, and naively you could think that the acceleration is zero, but no, because the direction of the velocity vector changes over time, we a have a centripetal acceleration towards the center - as that is the acceleration needed for the motion to be circular. --Slaunger (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I don't think it's necessary. More arrows are going to make it cluttered and less clear, in my opinion. InverseHypercube 07:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't require more arrows. A single acceleration vector (incorporating both tangential and normal components) for each ball would be enough. --Avenue (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, no need for extra arrows, just mame the ones there complete by adding the normal component, which will be proportional to speed squared. -Slaunger (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The acceleration is due to the gravitational force that does not change. It is meaningless to show a constant vector. The component illustrated is that which causes the motion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.144.75.151 (talk • contribs)

The gravitational force does not change, correct, but that is not the only force acting here. If it was, all the balls would fall straight down and not follow the curve at all. --Avenue (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, of course, but taking into account the normal force we see that the balls land with an arrow pointing upwards, which is odd to explain if the curve degenerates in a straight line with a discontinuity in the radius of curvature...--93.144.75.151 14:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ensayo jominy2.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2012 at 03:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by Remux -- Remux - I will never forget that i fell in love with the more beautiful flower Ĉu mi povas helpi vin je io? 03:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a great image of hardenability, Jominy test and materials science-- Remux - I will never forget that i fell in love with the more beautiful flower Ĉu mi povas helpi vin je io? 03:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad quality. Dipankan001 (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality and composition is not good. Interesting subject though and this photo might qualify as a Valued Image, but not a FP --NJR_ZA (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: per above. Tomer T (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Princess Marie of Saxe-Altenburg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2012 at 18:02:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created: draft by "C. P. Allemand", lithograph by "Fr. Hanfstaengl", photograph by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Tomer T (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salzburg - Panorama (nachts).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2012 at 19:57:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice atmosphere, good quality. Perspective distortion on the left and composition problems on the right (crane and the very disturbing handrail don't fit into the image). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 23:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose I would prefer a cut removing the right crane and lights and also a bit of the bottom.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good lighting, but compositional issues, per Carschten. --ELEKHH^T 19:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info Edited and nominated by Tomer T (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I cropped away the handrail and most of the crane. I didn't cut away the whole crane because I think it's not really disturbing this way, and I preferred leaving room to the fortress. If you think otherwise, let me know. Tomer T (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this works better mostly because it is now without the handrail. --Ximonic (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not really better. Crop at bottom not the best because of the cut off bridge and church spire; on the right still a part of the crane; still distorted on the left. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all buildings on the left side fall leftwards which affects the overall balance. The cut-off spire is not so disturbing to me, but the bridge part and the hanging in crane with the light are a minus. --ELEKHH^T 19:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt2[edit]

Info straightened and another crop suggestion by --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this version.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice correction work by Carschten. The light on the right edge is a tiny minus. --ELEKHH^T 19:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and amazing quality, great pano overall. Time of day (just enough dusk to show lights, enough brightness to show surroundings) is really good as well. Also, note the metaphotography, as a person on the bridge on the very bottom left of the photo appears to be takings photos as well ;) Freedom to share (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was there too ;) A.Savin 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- MJJR (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

The chosen alternative is: File:Salzburg - Panorama (nachts) - CN.jpg