Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2009

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.


Contents

File:Epitonium scalare shell.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 11:38:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 07:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Middelgrunden wind farm 2009-07-01 edit filtered.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2009 at 21:21:51
Middelgrunden offshore wind farm, Øresund, Denmark

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, edited, and nominated by Slaunger - further edits (color correction, dust spot removal) by Richard Bartz -- Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info When built in 2000, Middelgrunden offshore wind farm (40 MW) was the worlds largest offshore wind farm supplying 3% of the electricity for Copenhagen. Since offshore wind farms are raised on the most windy areas it is quite unusual to observe them in glossy sea as here. There was a special haze this warm summer day where the sky and the sea horizon was almost unseparable, which made the sight very unusual (for me at least). --Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - you missed a dust spot (2nd tower from the left, lhs, 1/3 way up)......Symbol support vote.svg Support - Peripitus (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for noticing and reviewing my image. I see what appears to be a spot at the location you mention in the image page preview, but I cannot see it at all in full resolution (so I would not know how to fix it). Can you see it in full resolution? Maybe it is introduced by the sharpnening which is applied in the preview creation process? --Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very nice composition, but could perhaps use even more color adjustment. Maybe something like this? (Note: I'm not nominating my version as an alternative, at least not yet.) Also, I suspect both versions could use some more tweaking to fix compression artifacts e.g. around the blades. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with you that your more colorful edit is more impressive and eye-catching, and in a previous version of the file I had a quite similar edit. However, I decided to go for a less drastic saturation, as these flashy National Geographic-like edits (this is not intended as criticism of you) are simply not being representative of the subject I am trying to illustrate. I think that since the WMF scope is to provide educational and informational content there is a point in not bending reality too much in trying to get something which looks nice and eye-catching. In the edit I have nominated Richard and I have bent reality to an extend where I still find it justifiable for illustrative and educational purposes. Of course other users may have different opinions or views on this, which I respect. --Slaunger (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Comment concerning compression artifacts, I acknowledge that traces thereof are visible at the edge of the wings. I really do not know what can be done of that (or if anything should be done). I do not think it is visible at normal viewing resolutions/distances. The image was taken with "finest" jpeg resolution and I have saved intermediate edits in at least 93% jpeg quality (I do not know which quality Richard has used, but knowing his professionalism I would guess a quite high one as well). --Slaunger (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, and I also think Ilmari's edit is very oversaturated. --Aqwis (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A rather dreamy picture, almost looks computer generated. Nice work. --Calibas (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Downtowngal (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Calibas. Very surreal. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome picture. My hat goes off to the photographer. -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition, but it's just too blurry (poor quality). kallerna 09:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It is my understanding that the blur is caused by the aforementioned "haze", and therefore part of the scenery. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The original taken with 1/500s exposure and f/20 is in my opinion crisp and clear and has a very good DOF, if you look at the edge structure of the wings and and the masts of the wind mills. The rest of the original has no clear structure, but that is due to the aforementioned glossy sea and haze. The original has other problems though, as it is quite noisy (despite ISO 100) and somewhat underexposed. In the following post processing further noise was visible following curves correction, and I was concerned that I would have to apply a too agressive noise reduction to bring it to a tolerable level - at the cost of loss of detail. In the end I did apply a rather aggressive noise reduction using Noiseware, but was positively surprised that I did not seem to loose noticeable details in the structure of the turbines. The sea looks very glossy afterwards and there is no clear separation between sea and sky, but that matches what I saw. I admit that a little detail has been lost in the finer details of the reflections of the wind mills at the lower edge of the image and at a few wing tips placed at the end of the curve, but that was the postprocessing compromise I made to reach the best end result. In hindsight I would have gotten a more optimal result if I had increased the exposure time for the original a tad when I took it and I respect if other reviewers find the non-optimal starting point has compromized the end result too much. --Slaunger (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • f/20 is probably too much for a sharp image. --Muhammad (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Difficult to get shot + decent technique + interesting subject + informative value = fraturable picture. Simple. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – It looks like more than just haze to me – f/20 may have caused some serious diffractions. From an image like that I expect a better quality and a little more crispness. --Ernie (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AlexAH (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jklamo (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 07:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Geneva mechanism 6spoke animation.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2009 at 10:34:23
This animation shows a six-position Geneva Mechanism in operation

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mike1024 - uploaded by Luigi Chiesa - nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason for nomination: Extremely clear animation illustrating a difficult-to-explain mechanism. Already featured on two Wikipedias. We really need more featured diagrams and animations. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very smooth and clear animation, I think it deserves the FP status. Looking forward to seeing a bigger file if it exists, otherwise it doesn't matter. Diti the penguin 10:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm surprised to see a mass agreeing, I thought FP reviewers were all the “follow the rules no matter what” type. ;) Diti the penguin 01:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Simple, smooth, concise and very informative. And a very interesting mechanism. Thank you for nominating something different! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit small but very well presented. /Daniel78 (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very well done. --Calibas (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ---donald- (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As JovanCormac and others. The Museum of Science and Industry in Birmingham used to have a display of this and many other such mechanisms dating mostly from the 19th century (some earlier), which were very informative on the ingenuity of our industrial ancestors before electronics took much of the skill out of machinery. Sadly, this is one of the things lost to the people of (and visitors to) Birmingham when the then Labour administration closed this free museum and transferred many exhibits to the Think Tank to the loss of the people of Birmingham. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it is an intriguing illustration of this mechanical device, but the illustration with its plain coloration simply has not the delicate and professional look and feel and technical quality I would expect from an FP, which could appear on the main page. A 3D rendered version, which shades, texture etc please, see, e.g., File:Simple CV Joint animated.gif for an example of more worked through graphics. --Slaunger (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • IMO it is the fact that this is not a 3D animation that makes it so very clear to see what is going on. 3D often distracts with textures and unnecessary shading and lighting. As long as the structure in question isn't 3D itself (such as the CV Joint), 2D illustrations can be much more clear and legible. -- JovanCormac (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with you that this is an important difference between the planar geometry nominated here and the example I gave. To clarify what I meant, I do not mind the current quite simple isometric representation and its current angle of view (which is also three-dimensional as the sheet objects used has to have finite thickness). What I would like to see is a more delicate coloration of the surfaces including light sources, shading and more realistic colors (metallic). That would IMO not distract from understanding the mechanism. In a more sophisticated animation the mechanism could be shown in a real mechanical watch application, where the watch parts interfacing to the mechanism could be shown half-transparent and let the mechanism stand out. Having the mechanism shown in a specific application could give an even better understanding of the purpose of the mechanism. I am not saying that this illustration is in any way bad, I just feel there are so many ways such an illustration could be made even more informative and interesting to look at as an observer. --Slaunger (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
        • (Don't forget that JovanCormac is not the creator of this image, only the Nominator, so he is in the same boat as the rest of us in discussing some of the details.) I agree that the simple illustration we have here is lacking some of those "work of art" aspects which would make it "Picture of the Day". The shading Slaunger asks for would be nice. If someone uploads such a version, make sure that Jovan is told so that he can nominate that one as a replacement for this. Meanwhile, this is (IMO with an Engineering BSc) an acceptable illustration of how this mechanism works. William of Occam rules OK. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the combination of this clean, simple drawing and such smooth animation. --Lošmi (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Outstanding animation. - Damërung . -- 21:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question - The lunar-shaped section (in green), what is it for? - Damërung . -- 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • While I'm not a mechanics expert, it looks to me as if the round side holds the red wheel in place while the half-moon side is cut out so that the red wheel may slide through. The green shape really seems to be the shape generated by the movement of the whole mechanism, and therefore quite optimal. -- JovanCormac (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm also no engineer, but without the crescent insert the red wheel would keep spinning after the green rod lets it go (due to the inertia) and would drift out of position, rendering the setup useless. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 07:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Guillaume Delisle North West Africa 1707.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2009 at 17:22:58
Old map of North Africa

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Guillaume Delisle - uploaded by Ephraim33 - crop, hi-res upload and nominated by Jklamo -- Jklamo (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jklamo (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a clear winner. Amazing detail there. -- JovanCormac (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question There is no image that appear.--Ocre (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    Click through the links: [1] --Aqwis (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can't find the picture - not displayed on Featured Picture Candidates page, and clicking through links gets to the "cannot be displayed ... because it contains errors" mesage. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    Full resolution works ok, smaller does not work, some of them are showing older noncropped version. I have no idea, where is problem. --Jklamo (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    Uploaded a bit differently compressed version, thumbs now work. --Jklamo (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a pity that there being no thumbnail seems to prevent this picture from receiving enough votes to make FP. Truly, this is one of the most detailed old maps on commons! -- JovanCormac (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really, really good. Maedin\talk 13:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 07:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC) 

File:Church of St. Andrew, Alfriston, England Crop - May 2009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2009 at 20:09:59
Church of St Andrew, Alfriston

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by David Iliff, nominated by Maedin
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This church is in the village of Alfriston, in the UK, and was built in 1360.
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMaedin\talk 20:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice in every way. Even the names on the gravestones are legible! -- MJJR (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, very good! --Aqwis (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – For my taste it is a bit oversaturated (especially in the green tones) though. --Ernie (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Oversaturated kallerna 13:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice shot. - Damërung . -- 21:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Time3000 (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - agree with Kallerna, the saturation appears slightly too intense. Downtowngal (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sadly, I have to agree about the saturation. --JalalV (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 07:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Play Voices from Chernobyl.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 00:19:45
Play "Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster" from Svetlana Alexievitch, Geneva, April 25, 2009.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The light was very low, yet I feel that the actress expression is amazing. Yann (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We really need more pictures of people, and this one is nice at low res, but at high res it is far too blurry for a FP. -- JovanCormac (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with JovanCormac, too blurry. --Eusebius (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Is this one good enough? It is still much over 2 Mpixel. Yann (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, not for me. Plus, there's no "wow" for me (personal opinion). --Eusebius (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 07:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Timon pater tangitanus-Prague ZOO.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 22:50:32
Timon pater tangitanus (North african ocellated lizard) in Prague ZOO(taken through the glass)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 07:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Summer - statue in Oppeln.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2009 at 00:24:59
"Summer" - statue in Opole (Oppeln, Uopole), Upper Silesia

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose crop, composition.--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is too ordinary of a FP. -- JovanCormac (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 07:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Titan-crystal bar.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 12:22:35
The chemical element Titanium, as a crystal bar

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great detail! - Keta (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zuffe (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is very rare and original, and has a very good resolution. - Damërung . -- 21:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Peripitus (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noodle snacks (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Having just nominated this for FP on the english wikipedia, I'd have to be a bit harsh not to support it here. Great job. Time3000 (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support informative --ianaré (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Amazing. Tevonic (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vprisivko (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Matasg 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:2006-01-15 coin on water.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 12:20:16
Coin on water

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Noisy, the resolution is far below the guidelines, contrast and sharpness could be a lot better, too. This was nominated over 3 years ago (and barely got featured), and would probably not be featured today. While the effect of floating a coin on water is certainly hard to achieve, once it is done the water glass does not make a hard subject to photograph. The effect itself is therefore no excuse for the poor image quality. This is a valued image, not a featured one. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 13:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist For surface tension, this is a far superior image. Maedin\talk 18:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Wow. What a picture. I didn't know it. Should probably be a Valued Image. -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Featured on En. Why not on Commons? Maedin\talk 19:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist - Too small and nothing special. - Damërung . -- 01:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --ianaré (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Karel (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist size! --JalalV (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Image:Hatiora ×graeseri flower.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:19:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Rock life.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:22:03


Result: 4 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Common blue damselfly02.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:22:59
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Common snail.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:23:50
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:BrockenBahnWinter.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:24:35
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:EuropeanParliament.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:25:16
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:View from Mardin to the Mesopotamian plains.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:26:03
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Severe quality issues. Just take a look. -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 06:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist I love the compostion of this one, and several of the other delisting candidates. I'd love for someone to reshoot these pictures at an acceptable standard for FP. I'd do it myself, but being a uni student in Australia... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand what you mean, and IMO the only reason why these images have not lost their FP status much earlier is the fact that their composition is so cool. But being simple landscape shots this is just no excuse for the quality, so they have to go from the FP library. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Composition is great, resolution is acceptable. Quality is not the best, but i think that is a problem of camera, not photographer. Also i am not able to find any better pic of subject in its category. --Jklamo (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - Resolution is high, and the quality is good enough for me. - Damërung . -- 20:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep As above. --Karel (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - Downtowngal (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Result: 4 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:LosAngeles04.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 16:40:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Daniel78 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:SalzburgerAltstadt02.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 16:43:48
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Low resolution, mediocre picture. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist This does not do Salzburg justice. Maedin\talk 19:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Incidentially, I used to live in Salzburg for almost 10 years. This is also why this picture being featured upset me so much :) -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist I totally agree --Ernie (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 06:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - This image is very very awesome for me, but unfortunately, it has a low quality (what a disgrace). - Damërung . -- 01:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Karel (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Nice mood. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Nice picture, low quality. --JalalV (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Result: 7 delist, 1 keep, 1 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Australia Cairns 01.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 16:46:35
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Inacceptable quality by today's FP standards, notably JPEG artifacts, lots of noise and shallow DOF. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 06:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - It has enough DoF to me, and is aesthetically good
    Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request - Perhaps a small noise reduction is all that it needs... someone? - Damërung . -- 01:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Karel (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Quite beautiful, I would like it to stay even though it might not have gone in by todays standards. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --JalalV (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Result: 4 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:WernigerodeCastleWinter.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 14:39:25
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Glaring quality issues. Sharpness is terrible, size is borderline. Little more than a snapshot. Attempt has been made to delist before (Link). Hard to believe this was ever featured. It's time we rid the FP library of this dinosaur! -- JovanCormac (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Unfortunate quality issues. Maedin\talk 19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 06:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist - At first I thought this image must not be delisted, but in full size, the picture is extremely blurry, lets get rid of it. - Damërung . -- 01:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --JalalV (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Pinguicula vulgaris.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 14:34:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): The quality issues are obvious. At first I thought this was an underwater photograph, explaining the poor quality for a FP, but when I looked the plant up it turned out to be just a common weed. Thus the poor contrast, lack of sharpness and poor composition are inexcusable for the FP category. -- JovanCormac (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Surprised this was ever featured, :-/ Maedin\talk 19:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 06:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist - What a low quality! - Damërung . -- 01:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Karel (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. --JalalV (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Eyjafjallajökull.jpeg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 12:37:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Another dinosaur from the early days of "Featured Pictures". No chance this would make FP today. It is extremely blurry, noisy, looks overprocessed as well as seemingly cut from a postcard(?) on the bottom left (black fade). -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Love the composition, but multiple quality problems. kallerna 13:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Really like it, but quality just is not good. I think that continuing to consider these images "featured" is a damage to Commons' reputation. Maedin\talk 18:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - The image looks nice to me, but the colors are strange. - Damërung . -- 01:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Cold colors but it kind of suits the motive. Not bad enough. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep As Daniel78. Cold colors suit the picture. --JalalV (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep best colors --Luc Viatour (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Result: 4 delist, 3 keep, 1 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Set Candidate - Platonic Solids Stereo Animations, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 11:36:26
Tetrahedron
Cube
Octahedron
Dodecahedron
Icosahedron

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Animated stereo[2] images of the five Platonic solids, unfolding & refolding themselves to highlight their structure. Recommended viewing distance: 30-50 cm. Designed & rendered with Wolfram Mathematica 7, assembled & optimized with Ulead GIF Animator 5. See User:JovanCormac for a page with all the animations at full size. -- JovanCormac (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Caution: Internet Explorer has difficulty displaying high-quality, large animated GIFs smoothly. Using Firefox or another alternative browser is highly recommended for optimal viewing. -- JovanCormac (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poor Kepler. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why is each object displayed twice? --Ernie (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It isn't. The right vesion is slightly rotated to the left. Those are not normal pictures, but autostereograms which can be viewed in 3D (you probably know Magic Eye). For more information, and viewing instructions, see [3]. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info (ec) I'd assume it's because they're stereograms. You're supposed to uncross your eyes to see them in 3D. (Incidentally, having the different images side by side is really distracting when you try to do that. I've been bold and added some <br> tags above to make the layout more stereo-friendly. Oh, and these are not autostereograms, just plain old stereograms.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you for aligning the pictures, Ilmari. And yes, those are autostereograms, not just stereograms. From Wikipedia: "Autostereograms are similar to normal stereograms except they are viewed without a stereoscope." Well, to view those images, you only need to cross your eyes, not use a stereoscope. -- JovanCormac (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC) The relevant Wikipedia articles seem not to distinguish precisely between stereogram and autostereogram. I have relabeled the series as simply "stereograms" to avoid confusion. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think that sentence is meant to be a definition, merely a description. It certainly doesn't match the definition of "autostereogram" that I'm aware of, which is essentially what's given in the terminology section of the article, as well as the lead sentence: "An autostereogram is a single-image stereogram [...]". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To me it looks like the sides do are not stiched together completely, like there is a small gap as both the background and the edges are white. ( I can't judge the stereo part of this as I have never managed to see the 3D in such images although I have tried many times ). /Daniel78 (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd support the dodecahedron but I'm not sure they all should be FPs. --Calibas (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That's awesome! Diti the penguin 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cool --Muhammad (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Svgalbertian (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very cool. Time3000 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support useful and well made, good job ! --ianaré (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oooh! Normally, I simply ignore animations as I find myself unable to judge them adequately. I find most animations quite simplistic and crude, mostly due to the limitations of technology and filesize. I was about to ignore this one (a bunch of rotating shapes), when I read that it was a 3D image. Once you cross your eyes in the right way and see the 3D, it is really well done! Good job, and I definitely support! --JalalV (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Kloster Ebrach BW 7.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 16:03:44
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The composition is awesome, but sadly the picture is lacking in sharpness. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There was no tripod allowed --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --95.232.174.156 08:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Not anonymous votes allowed. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, very unsharp. --Aqwis (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not good enough.--Claus (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good image, but quality is not good enough for FP.--Karel (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral, 1 invalid => not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Vlinder1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 18:53:27
black and white lepidopter on a flower

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by hrald - uploaded by hrald - nominated by hrald -- Hrald (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hrald (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice, I think. Size is on the low side, though it still meets requirements. Maedin\talk 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice picture, and has a lot to commend it. Sadly, it is only 1.6MPx, so it has no chance of FP status. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The picture is beautiful, and the black butterfly is unusual. But it is a fact that it's below the size recommendation and we don't have so few butterfly pictures that it would make up for this, to put it mildly... -- JovanCormac (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Change vote to Symbol support vote.svg Support. hrald has uploaded a higher-res version that meets all the requirements and is just as beautiful. ID is still needed though, but I am sure someone will be able to do it. -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the size has been changed, this was my first upload, I took the wrong (small) size per mistake!! hope it still has a chance becoming a fp now:-)--Hrald (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice shot, but noisy and still unidentified. --Olei (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Olei. kallerna 06:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Identification of the species is not an FP criteria. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Theoretically it doesn't need even an image description because it's not written in the guidelines ? Of course it should be identified to make it valuable.   • Richard[®] • 08:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As long it's unindentified   • Richard[®] • 08:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I might oppose because it doesn't have a decent description (filename and description which says butterfly!), which indeed lowers its value. Some seem to demand species id (which admittedly the above comments don't), but often it is better for amateurs to identify at higher level en:Euploea than make inaccurate guesses at the exact species. I don't believe amateur guesses add to value. So maybe we agree :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to be a biologist to identify insects. There are hundreds of useful forums (started with en:WP or de:WP) where you can get a identification of your images.   • Richard[®] • 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tony - Vlinder is butterfly in Dutch! So it is in the file name. But I guess if it's in Eng Wikipedia, it ought to be in english..- Ashley

Yes, that is what I said, filename and description both just say 'butterfly' in different languages - Dutch and Latin. A rather inadequate description. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now that the image is sufficient resolution. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info After doing some research (on wikipedia!:-)) I found the butterfly likely to be a:

Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Order: Lepidoptera Family: Nymphalidae Subfamily:Danainae Genus: Euploea Species: E. core

I posted this picture to see if it could make the featured picture status, not because of the subject being a Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Danainae Euploea E. core. It was not mentioned in the rules for becoming a featured picture to have a 100% sufficient description. IMHO the name of the subject adds nothing to the photographic quality of a picture. I would never upload an insufficient named cq labeled picture to a wiki article! greetings--Hrald (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Black is black... Colors composition. --Karel (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too less contrast with background, especially in left top. Strange artefacts in white spots of forewing. Indentification is doubtful, there are some other very similar species. We have already enough wrong identified insects. Location where image was taken is missing (could help to identify). --Hsuepfle (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Ornamental Alphabet - 16th Century.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 12:45:32
Ornamental latin alphabet

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Delamotte, F - vectorized, uploaded & nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Beautiful ornamental alphabet from the 16th century, vectorized for cleanest appearance. Must be seen at a large size to fully appreciate, recommend looking at [4]. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vectorized? Wow... Durova (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice work.   ■ MMXXtalk  17:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wow - Keta (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The quick supports make me happy, and confirm my belief that we should nominate many more non-photo pictures for FP. The site I got the scanned original from - [5] - is a true treasure of public domain images. I believe we should import most, if not all of them into Commons over time. The book this picture is from (Ornamental Alphabets, Ancient and Mediæval) also contains a lot more beautiful alphabets, and I believe that I can vectorize most of the others in similar quality. -- JovanCormac (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportgreat job, clean appearance at large size!! :-)--Hrald (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great work.--Claus (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have vectorized the other alphabets from the book as well (except for the really plain ones). You can see them at my userpage. -- JovanCormac (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I completely agree that more graphic material like this should be featured. GerardM (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is just stunning. Best use of vectors I've seen in a long time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, wow! --Kjetil_r 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have made border improvements and a slight decrease in fie size: File:Ornamental Alphabet - 16th Century edit.svg. ZooFari 23:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I wasn't sure whether I should do this or preserve the look from the original book, but now I am convinced that it does in fact look far better! Great job! Please replace the picture with your version, it really is superior. -- JovanCormac (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • On second thought, I just realized that your method of adding borders compromised some of the original detail and balance close to the borders of a few letters, e.g. on the letters "T" and "V", the feet of the griffins are now uncomfortably close to the border, as are the tree trunks. While I still think that the "clean" borders look far better than the original ones, I believe adding them should be done in a way that doesn't damage the original interior. I'll look into it again later today. Comments are welcome. -- JovanCormac (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I did a thorough restoration (took almost 2 hours) of the entire image, fixing the borders as suggested by ZooFari (but without touching the interior), patching holes & tears (with the help of another scan of the same page at [6]) and splitting the image into the separate letters and aligning them along a grid. For anyone who has liked the previous version, I recommend looking at the restoration. It really is a huge improvement. -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fantastic vectorization! --JalalV (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:IMG 0839 Yarlong Tsangpo.jpg,featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 10:14:45
Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibet.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Lucag - uploaded by Lucag - nominated by The Evil IP address -- The Evil IP address (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well, I just randomly came across that picture, and I really like it. It's a nice landscape: We see a river that is so long that the mountains are only visible in the background. You know, it makes me really feel like wanting to go there and seeing this beautiful landscape with my own eyes. Considering all the technical things, I can't think of anything that could be opposed, however I admit I'm still a n00b in that area. Thank you for your consideration. -- The Evil IP address (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice landscape shot --AngMoKio (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pretty good. Sky is somewhat noisy, but within an acceptable range. Maedin\talk 19:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Slightly overprocessed, but very nice image. -- MJJR (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise in the sky is too visible for me, clouds are partly overexposed. --Eusebius (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support,1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)  

File:Tyto alba 2 Luc Viatour.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 10:53:59
Barn owl in flight

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Tyto alba 1 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 10:51:31
Barn Owl in flight

result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Lightning 14.07.2009 20-42-33.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 11:14:02
Lightning over Schaffhausen, Switzerland.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Simisa, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning picture of lightnings. The "wow" is certainly there. Yann (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You beat me to it! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question How come one sees four birds with different shades of grey in the middle? -- Klaus with K (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I guess it is from the stroboscopic effect of the lightning during the exposure time of 2 seconds, i.e. the bird appears only during the short period of the bolts. -- Simisa (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC) -- The explanation of Simisa is correct: probably we have four images of one and the same bird during its flight. -- MJJR (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This stroboscopic effect IMO adds quite a bit of value to the picture, and should probably be mentioned in the image description. It is also what makes me Symbol support vote.svg Support this nomination. -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per answer to my question above - the bird really tells you about timing and relative intensities. -- Klaus with K (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Matasg 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Snug Falls 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 12:12:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As I was planning on nominating it... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition which distinguishes this from the average waterfall picture. Just wondering, however, about the exposure, which seems from the metadata to give almost total white. Did you use a filter to enable the long exposure time which blurs the water so well? -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Two. Polariser improves colour saturation and knocks off a stop or two. Neutral density darkens by another two stops. Sometimes I drop the ND depending on the situation. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition, too--Sabri76 07:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. --Karel (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC) - not valid vote, after voting period
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Erinaceus europaeus 3.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 12:57:37
West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus).

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, o neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:College of Arms-Lant's Roll.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 22:17:27
An image of the coat of arms of the College of Arms from a 1595 manuscript called Lant's Roll, created by Thomas Lant.

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Svgalbertian (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Lama 1 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 15:18:33
young Lama

Yes it is the moon, the picture is made 300mmm. --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Kleiner Fuchs, Aglais urticae.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 21:00:29
Kleiner Fuchs, Aglais urticae

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Muhammad (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 16:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left forewing and hindwings (blue spots) out of focus. --Hsuepfle (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is this picture really significantly equivalent or better in quality than the many, many insect and butterfly pictures already featured? --JalalV (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Balerdi Azkarate gainean.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 21:42:21
Picture of Balerdi mountain.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Keta - uploaded by Keta - nominated by Keta -- Keta (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Keta (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • {{Oppose}}, the white balance is a bit off. Fix this, and I'll support. --Aqwis (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done The previous version had the white balance unchanged, just as the camera took it, but you were right, even the clouds were yellowish. - Keta (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support, cheers! --Aqwis (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  17:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Nice shot, but please add a heading parameter to the location template. --Kjetil_r 23:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I replaced camera location with object location. I think it's more descriptive this way, you can see in a map where the place is, rather than where the camera was. Anyway, if you prefer I can put camera location and heading information. - Keta (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Consensus on commons is camera location (BTW for good reasons). -- Klaus with K (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
        • ✓ Done Detailed enough now? - Keta (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kjetil_r 16:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hsuepfle (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Trompette - premier piston - montage perspective.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 22:16:41
A trumpet piston valve.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Eusebius (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is a very nice illustration of a trumpet piston valve. Especially the exploded view on the RHS is well made, the techniques in the montage and background removal is good, the overall image quality and lightning is good as well. Only a pity that the valve appear worn and smudged. I think you could have achieved a better result if each part had been carefully polished and cleaned before doing the photos, but the overall result is still good enough for me. --Slaunger (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    I wouldn't apply anything but valve oil on the sliding part, and I certainly wouldn't perform any "mechanical" process on it, it is a precision mechanism. But the inside is dirty, yes, however it is really a pain in the neck to clean those little parts. For info I have already spent more than an hour cleaning the instrument before shooting. --Eusebius (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI see your point and I also think it is satisfactory as is - otherwise I would not have supported in the first place. --Slaunger (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose valued images--Claus (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'll probably nominate it at VI as well, with other candidates. --Eusebius (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We need more and better illustrations. Graphics as a category are underrepresented.. And "valued images" is not valued at all. GerardM (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - as supporters. Downtowngal (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, o neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Polar bears near north pole.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 10:25:23
Polar bears approach submarine

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Chief Yeoman Alphonso Braggs, US-Navy - uploaded by Ed g2s - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An interesting encounter between the US Navy and another set of hunters.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - wow overrides blurriness and small size. Downtowngal (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, composition. - Keta (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition, very low detail --che 00:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per che. kallerna 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per keta and che. -- H005 (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 12:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

File:West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus)1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 14:08:26
Erinaceus europaeus, west european hedgehog

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by hrald - uploaded by hrald - nominated by hrald -- Hrald (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hrald (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Bad crop, but I really like this photo so I weak Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn 17:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I simply love the composition here - Peripitus (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful. --Calibas (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Best hedgehog picture on Commons IMO. -- JovanCormac (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support cute ! --ianaré (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perfect. ---donald- (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support So cute!   ■ MMXXtalk  18:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks like me. --Karel (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice animal =) --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cute! Good composition. --JalalV (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Matasg 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Silver Spoon (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 12:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 12:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Can't please everyone2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 16:30:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Walter Crane - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova: restored version of File:Can't please everyone.jpg. -- Durova (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info From an 1887 children's edition of Aesop's fables.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While the resolution is high and the scan quality good, I find the dotted printing distracting and the picture overall a little less than amazing. -- JovanCormac (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The dotted printing, typical of printing of that date, is not that much of a problem. What is interesting, and would commend it as a Valued Picture, is the way the whole fable is told in one image. Question. Did you upload this image as a commentary on the sometimes unpredictable voting on FP Candidates? -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Sort of a sly commentary on certain wiki behaviors. Not particularly those at FPC. Durova (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- This was state of the art printing at the time (it is a scan of a first edition). GerardM (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice story, great restoration. Yann (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The artwork is not special enough. Downtowngal (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both as an interesting and useful restoration, and a lesson that holds even truer today. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Oil platform P-51 (Brazil).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 17:44:51
Oil platform P-51

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Agência Brasil - uploaded by Dantadd - nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is a striking photo of a very interesting subject, and it surprises me that it has not been nominated before. Detail is great, sharpness good for a photo taken from sea, resolution is quite high and there is zero noise. -- JovanCormac (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very high quality. - Damërung . -- 21:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perfect --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've actually looked for good oil platform -photo. kallerna 09:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, what about the many jpg compression artifacts? --Kjetil_r 23:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Name one. - Damërung . -- 17:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll call him Frank. --Calibas (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very valuable image! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not the best crop, though. - Keta (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  18:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Matasg 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice --che 23:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Fossil Bay Seascape 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 02:01:54
SHORT DESCRIPTION

What a nice welcome!--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you might be jumping to conclusions a little fast there Noodle. Everyone has to start somewhere. I began my own stay on Commons by reviewing interesting pictures people had nominated, if you remember, yet I wasn't assumed to be sockpuppet. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll wait until I get home to my own monitor before I review your picture; the monitors here at work are horrible. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to loose my time to look for more examples and I pardon the silly suspicion of yours. I know you are upset I opposed your image.--Two+two=4 (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it - good lighting and composition. Time3000 (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looking well. --Karel (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, quite good. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - colors are too artificial Downtowngal (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) - not valid vote - after voting period
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Morus bassanus adu.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 14:15:42
Morus bassanus flying

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Andreas Trepte; uploaded by Merops; nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kadellar (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! And I thought we had some great bird pics on Commons already. The sheer clarity of the photo blows my hat off. -- JovanCormac (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I just noticed that Mr. Trepte, the author of this photo, has licensed it (according to [7]) under CC version 2.0, not 2.5 as stated in the image description. This should probably be fixed, unless this photo was explicitly put under another license. -- JovanCormac (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I hadn't noticed that. It should be fixed. Probably Merops can answer your question better than me. Kadellar (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ra'ike T C 15:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Super! kallerna 16:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent work --ianaré (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice bird, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - what good lighting will do!Downtowngal (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Breathtaking! very nice.   ■ MMXXtalk  18:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Keta (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Superb, though a rather tight crop. --Calibas (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very, very good! --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- Pro2 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support !!!!Exellent!!!! --Luc Viatour (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, the quality is superior. --Vprisivko (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Matasg 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning! Julielangford (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) - not valid vote, after voting period
result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Atmosphere composition diagram.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 15:50:35
Atmosphere composition

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Phillipe Recacewicz - uploaded by RedAndr - nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A highly detailed and aesthetically pleasing SVG diagram showing the composition of the atmosphere as well as the effects of various anthropogenic factors on it. -- JovanCormac (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - IMO, the "cities" are overemphasized and "industry" and "transportation" are underemphasized, giving an erroneous message about what is causing the problem. Downtowngal (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this is very well put together. The detail is great. -- Julielangford (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) - not valid vota, after voting period
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Aialik glacier pano.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 19:08:38
Aialik glacier

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Aialik, the largest tidewater glacier in Kenai Fjords National Park. All by ianaré (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The quality! Unbelievable. -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please fill in the date field on the file page. Is it a stitch? If so, please add some details about how on the image page. You could add a heading to your location, that would make a cool (no pun intended) pointer towards the glacier. Last but not least. I've tried making such images of glaciers in North-West Greenland. I found it quite hard to do in good quality (I never uploaded any images, because I was not satisfied with the result), and I must say the technical quality and detail level of the ice in the glacier is impressive. --Slaunger (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words ! I added the date info. The image is a composite of 5 vertical exposures. Hardest part was keeping the movement of the boat manageable (as with almost all my pics, a tripod was not used). I don't know how to add direction info, can you advise ? --ianaré (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportErnie (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment – I guess the third description language is not English. --Ernie (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done --Ernie (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  18:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - beautiful and valuable. Downtowngal (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 10:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have now had time to carefully inspect the image, and it is very good. The only observations I had were some minor, peculiar looking patches in the ocean surface at the lower edge of the photo, which looks a little artificial, as if Hugin had some stitching problems there (it is not easy to stitch sea, because it has changed from one image to the other), and/or as if noise reduction has been appllied a little too agressively on the icean surface. --Slaunger (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Moved my support to the marginally better edit. --Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've made an alternate version (see below) which fixes some of these problems. --ianaré (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Matasg 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination above version only, in favor of alternate version below. --ianaré (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate version, featured

Aialik glacier

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info fixes some blending and stitching problems in first version.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré 10:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Marginally better than the very good original :-) --Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Downtowngal (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 11:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Chrumps (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- JMCC1 (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Stalinian architecture in Moscow (Kudrinskaya Square Building).JPG, not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info One of "Seven Sisters" (Building on Kudrinskaya Square). View from Moscow Zoo territory. Taken by me in May 2008.--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment First an encouragement for a nomination from Moscow. It is refreshing to see new Russian nominations. I have some problems with the composition of the photo, especially the left hand side, where the leaves and the stone construction impeeding through the left border is distracting. When we go further in from the left I feel a lot of space in the image is used on uninteresting trees and a half hidden roof. So, a lot of uninteresting area there. Personally I think I would have tried to make a photo in portrait orientation instead and focus more on the building. The light on the building is pretty good, but the overall image quality should be a little better IMO for an FP. --Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    Do you mean something like that File:Kudrinskaya Square Building in Moscow.jpg? --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please add geodata (including the header parameter). --Kjetil_r 23:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    Done --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really would love to see more Featured Pictures of Moscow, but this one sadly has a problem with sharpness on the main subject, the building. -- JovanCormac (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    Really? I think, sharpness is quite good for such shot...--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On both this nomination and the one below: You are allowed to vote for your own nomination (see the other nominations). -- JovanCormac (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Other variants according Slaungers advice.--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With the given photo, left I would crop just right of the brown building, right crop just a little further right than 2nd variant to include the full tree-top. Keep the reflection, and with a chance of another photo on location consider to include more of the reflection in the lake. Either use portrait, or take a few photos to stitch later. -- Klaus with K (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    Unfortunatelly, it's rather difficult to take full reflection - lake is not so huge. Wolld you please crop starting image and show the best combination, you think?--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Now looking at the images: left crop just so slightly tighter than image 2, right crop as on image 3. -- Klaus with K (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      Well, I just tried to keep standart sizes (9x13, 10x15, 13x18, 20x25). Is it important or not? --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      In my opinion, standard sizes (or standard aspect ratios like 4:3 or 3:2) are not important. They may be convenient, sometimes, but I would choose the crop which makes the image look best. -- Klaus with K (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Coke and beggar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2009 at 02:08:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, upploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An old coca cola slogan from 1939 "Coca-Cola goes along" -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - correlation is not the same as causation. Downtowngal (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, you are right.... but why oppose? isn´t the picture at hand the object of the evaluation? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - He likes Coca-cola (surely he could have bought a local Mexican drink). Does that mean he is enabling his own poverty? Possibly, but the composition does not convince me that that is true. Maybe someone gave him the bottle. Do you see what I mean? The idea of causation is there, but the composition just presents correlation. Downtowngal (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How do you know he is mexican? in mexico we receive tourists from all over the world... could be a camouflaged foreigner... but the point is the image? why the discourse? is it a featurable picture? If not, why not? critique on photographic/encyclopedic grounds, not philosophical! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - ok, Tomas, I'll say it more plainly. The idea is there, but the composition isn't strong enough. Downtowngal (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now, that´s language I can understand, I am just a humble pipe salesman, but maybe some day I will learn about composition, photography... ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Don't see the point of the discussion. Of course Coca-Cola didn't cause his poverty. And of course this is a great picture, engaging and interesting. -- JovanCormac (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice colours and quality but the tilt is disturbing (looks like he is to slide off to the right) and the picture does nothing special for me—just a bloke and a coke - Peripitus (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The colors don't seem to integrate well to my eye. The pose of the man was captured well, but I think the coke bottle detracts from the picture. --JalalV (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Peripitus. kallerna 10:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:SantaCruz-CuevaManos-P2210651b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2009 at 18:00:08
SantaCruz-CuevaManos-P2210651b.jpg

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F025952-0015, Bonn, Gesundheitsamt, Schutzimpfung.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 06:39:56
Oral polio vaccine 1967

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Oral polio vaccine added to sugar cubes, Germany 1967. Created by Jens Gathmann - uploaded by BArchBot courtesy of German Federal Archive image grant - nominated by InfantGorilla
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I was delighted when I saw this image: it is a very powerful piece of documentary history of the 1960s: contemporary with a mass worldwide campaign with a live oral vaccine that is no longer used in developed countries. The narrow depth of field and the composition drew my eye naturally to the action. It is only 0.4 megapixels, which seems to me appropriate given the limited detail communicated, and what appear to be artefacts (small white blotches) introduced by developing or storage. I think the resolution and defects are mitigated by the historical value. -- InfantGorilla (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the resolution is below 2MP. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 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.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image resolution is far too small for FP. However, as it is a photo of historical significance, why don't you nominate it for Valued Images? --JalalV (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, will do. Meanwhile, I suggest that using the 'FPX' template to guillotine discussion of 'strong mitigating reasons' for featuring low resolution images (to quote the nomination instructions) will create a bias against historic photography in Picture of the Day. --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Seconded. Should I mention pictures from the Bundesarchiv cannot meet the requirements because they are not free, and will never be until falling within Public Domain? Diti the penguin 17:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
        • re: Diti Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany License is free --InfantGorilla (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Cynthia cardui (by) (6).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 09:27:25
Cynthia cardui

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Pieris brassicae (by).jpg, featured[edit]

Pieris brassicae

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Two+two=4 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Maedin\talk 17:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 10:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is this picture really significantly equivalent or better in quality than the many, many insect and butterfly pictures already featured? --JalalV (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why it should be better? kallerna 18:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Or equivalent. Better or equivalent. :-) To me, this picture seems nice, but really nothing special compared to the many, many insect and butterfly pictures already featured. --JalalV (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better, as good as, on par with, doesn't matter IMO, You can't get too much af a great thing! This is excellent! Julielangford (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 12:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Spider web in Fiscalina Valley.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 12:05:04
A spidere web in Fiscalina Valley, in Sexten Dolomites, South Tyrol, Italy

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llorenzi - uploaded by Llorenzi - nominated by Llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can find no good reason why this picture should be without color. Furthermore, it is lacking in sharpness. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I can give you one if you want. If you make a near-perfect photo (in terms of composition, lightning, etc.) but the colors distract or suck, throwing the colors away can make a picture look stunning. Diti the penguin 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - beautiful in small size, but not sharp enough or unusual enough to be FP. Downtowngal (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Banksia formosa - open follicles.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 01:54:05
Great image of "an old fruiting head of Banksia formosa, with open follicles"


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Hesperian - uploaded by Hesperian - nominated by Tevonic -- Tevonic (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Great image quality, great for an encyclopedia. Could use geolocation. Tevonic (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp.--Two+two=4 (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality not enough for FP. --Karel (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.

File:Gent-Sint-Baafskathedraal vom Belfried aus gesehen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 22:49:34
Sint-Baafskathedraal (Saint Bavo Cathedral) in Ghent (Belgium) as seen from the top op the opposing bell tower

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mylius - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Mylius -- Mylius (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mylius (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - remarkable view! Downtowngal (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please add a heading to your geolocation. Adds value. --Slaunger (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose Excellent detail level, DOF and overall image quality, but the light on this overcast day does not induce significant readings on my wow-meter. Disregarding the climb up the bell tower it should be possible to make this shot at some other time where the light is better. --Slaunger (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In Belgium – like in England – most days are overcast like this (often even worse than here), therefore getting an image with a totally blue sky is almost impossible (and IMHO less authentic) unless you live there. --Mylius (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It does not have to be a "blue sky" photo. But I guess, that in Belgium (just like in Denmark, where I live) you also have "cloudy" days, where, if you wait for the right moment, you get better light. I think it is also a matter of the time of day. It can be see from the shadow that the facade is in shadow at this particular time of day. One out of 2300 files on Commons gets featured, so I think it is fair enough to expect that the timing in taking the image is just right. --Slaunger (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The detail level is great, but I don't particularly like the perspective and IMO the random people on the square make it look like a snapshot. -- JovanCormac 16:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is a snapshot - shooting with a tripod is impossible as the bell tower's battlement is too narrorw to get one up there. --Mylius (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great detail --ianaré (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good image, but qaulity and composition are common level. Background of city... Why for FP? --Karel (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What on earth is with the background of the city? Man, what has this place come to... skip the nomination, I won't waste my time here any longer and leave it to the elite (or those who know the right people to get their pictures featured). Cheers --Mylius (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Kachugasylhetensis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 16:05:13
A photo of the endangered Kachuga sylhetensis from Pakke Tiger Reserve, Northeast India.

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Submarines scrap filtered.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 16:10:44
Nuclear submarines being scrapped

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Calvin Larsen (filtered by JovanCormac) - uploaded by US-mil - retouched & nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Four nuclear submarines being scrapped. After filtering the terrible noise the picture quality is quite good, and the slight sharpness problems are IMO more than made up for by the cool composition, the high educational value and of course the sensitive nature of the vessels on display - this particular scrapyard is certainly not one where you can just go to and take a few snapshots at your leisure. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Two+two=4 (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Which submarines are these? 75.41.110.200 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I wasn't able to find any information about that. Sadly, the link provided as the original source of the photo is dead. -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Suggestions and comments Maybe, a perspective correction and rotation to make the submarines axes be aligned with up-down directipon such that it would appear as if the camera was centered right above the subs? And following that perhaps a light crop on the sides to eliminate some of those uninteresting roof of buildings? Not too convinced about the photo in its present state. Highly interesting subject though. --Slaunger (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Based on data from this article, I've worked out that the 4 submarines most likely being scrapped on the date that this picture was taken (31/07/1993) were the Threasher Class ex-Permit (SSN-594) and ex-Pollack (SSN-603) as well as the Skipjack Class ex-Scamp (SSN-588) and the unique sub, ex-Halibut (SSN-587). There's no way of knowing which is which, but hopefully we can confirm that the above names are correct. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Great job! I tried to find it myself but didn't succeed. Please add the information to the image description. -- JovanCormac 09:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I think V2 is better. The aspect ratio of V1 is a little extreme. I can't decide whether I like V2 or the original better, though. The tilted perspective adds a dynamical element to the picture IMO. -- JovanCormac 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Ara ararauna Luc Viatour.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 19:45:43
Ara ararauna

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wow! --che 23:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice capture! Is geotagging possible? --JalalV (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs a NR IMO --Muhammad (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great action and control. -- Julielangford (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I took the liberty of running a denoise filter on the photo. Result is here, and in my opinion looks a little better yet than this amazing photo already does. -- JovanCormac 14:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy. I'd support this version. kallerna 15:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the composition.--Claus (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm with Kallerna, I'd support the version with noise removed. Maedin\talk 07:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Kallerna --ianaré (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--ComputerHotline (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this version Symbol support vote.svg Support the noise reduced version. /Daniel78 (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this version Symbol support vote.svg Support the noise reduced version. Downtowngal (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would be nice with a location. I am seeing these life at the moment. ;-) Lycaon (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per Kallerna - Silver Spoon (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy. --Makele-90 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the noise reduced version.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Calvi-Feux 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 18:45:25
Calvi-Feux 2009.jpg

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Mt-St-Greg-RueEcureuils-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 18:28:10
Mont-Saint-Grégoire

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Pierre Bona - nominated by Mmxx   ■ MMXXtalk  18:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  18:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Full of life and vibrancy. Love it. Julielangford (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What she said. ^_^ Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As beautiful as this photo looks, I think the quality leaves too much to be desired. Sharpness is a big problem, and looking at the right side it appears to be overexposed as well. -- JovanCormac 14:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful - but far too blurry IMO. kallerna 15:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blurry--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - as opposers. Downtowngal (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Erloeserkirche Bad Homburg 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 18:09:32
The Church of the Redeemer in Bad Homburg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Object: The Church of the Redeemer in Bad Homburg. Created by Wo st 01 - uploaded by Wo st 01 - nominated by Wo st 01 -- Wo st 01 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wo st 01 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is this a tone-mapped HDRI? The colours look very unnatural to me. Also perspective correction is needed, too noisy, partly blurry, significant chromatic aberration and there's no real "wow" for me. -- H005 (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Pic is right out of a Canon Ixus 40, no alterations. It was a very sunny evening, just after a rainshower and the sun was right behind. I was surprised myself by the brightness of the colours. -- Wo st 01 (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reply. That's really strange. Anyway, you'll have a hard time to get a picture promoted to FP that comes out of such a small camera. Requirements are usually rather tough here, sorry. -- H005 (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    It's a first attempt, so I did not really expect to fly. If you find anything in here, feedback is welcome. -- Wo st 01 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Joshua Tree - Uncle Willie's Health Food Store.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 03:41:54
Joshua Tree National Park: Ruins of Uncle Willie's Health Food Store in Barker Dam Area.

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Squirrelmonkfamily1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 08:34:22
A family of Bolivian Squirrel Monkeys (Saimiri boliviensis)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by julielangford - uploaded by julielangford - nominated by julielangford -- Julielangford (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Julielangford (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I recommend geolocating it on the file page. --Slaunger (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • And also please mention the zoo by name where it was taken in the file page description. It is rather important to know if such photos are zoo shots or not. --Slaunger (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality - the face of the monkey on the left.--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Two+two=4, also quite noisy. -- JovanCormac (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The quality seems great, apart from that left monkey's face. What happened? Why just there? Maedin\talk 18:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think i have uploaded the wrong file by the looks of it. This is one that I have edited. I will swap it over for the right file now. --Julielangford (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely! Yann (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it is very good photo, and had it been from the wild in its natural environment, I would have supported. The slight quality problems on the face of one monkey (I did not see any significant imprevement in the new revision of the image) and the cutoff tail makes me conclude that it is not quite on par with what I expect from a featured picture. --Slaunger (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Slaunger. kallerna 15:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise and blur are too bad to ignore. -- JovanCormac 17:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Voted twice by accident. -- JovanCormac 06:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, Ok, I got you the first time, you oppose, that's fine, but could you possibly keep it to the once please. Julielangford (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, any user can vote once, if they like. If what you are really saying is that you got the point and would like to withdraw your nomination you can add

{{withdraw|~~~~}}

to this nomination page - and the reviews will stop. --Slaunger (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The user ment that JovanCormac opposed the image 2 times.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm really sorry about that, just realized it ;-) I scratched out the second one. Apologies in particular to the nominator, I meant no disrespect. -- JovanCormac 06:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
And sorry for overlooking that one user had indeed voted twice - I misunderstood your comment, Julie. --Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The quality on the left monkey isn't so good, but I think the right monkey and her baby more than make up for that. Maedin\talk 07:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - right side fine, left side just not interesting enough Downtowngal (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Villa Emo Fanzolo giardino retro 2009-07-18 f01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 14:30:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Marcok (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The rear garden of the Villa Emo in Fanzolo di Vedelago, Treviso, Italy. The villa was designed by Andrea Palladio in 1559 and it is part of the World Heritage Site "City of Vicenza and the Palladian Villas of the Veneto".
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Marcok (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Boring composition (symetry, bushes on the foreground). Diti the penguin 15:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing is sharp.--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, nothing special here. -- JovanCormac (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I quite like it, The symmetry is quite extraordinary. Great use of thirds too. I think a slight crop on the bottom would benefit it though, to remove that distracting dark area, which draws the eye straight away. Julielangford (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Regretfully Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - not sharp enough. I love the image though, reminds me of a Tarot card! Downtowngal (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Aida poster colors fixed.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 22:51:00
Aida

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by the Otis Lithograph Co. - uploaded by Adam Cuerden/Kaldari - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! -- JovanCormac (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  18:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks like it promised to be a lavish production. Maedin\talk 12:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Aida does kind of require some lavishness to pull off: There's a long instrumental triumphal march which inevitably falls flat in any lower-budget production, since it's long, and the only point to it, in the plot and the opera as a whole, is to show off Egypt's triumph with lavish celebration. You'd be wise to cut it - if it wasn't one of the best-known tunes in the opera. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 12:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- JMCC1 (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 12:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Rebus from Rebus-magazine.jpg, featured[edit]

Rebus

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Large and complicated rebus from Russian "magic, spiritual and supernatural" magazine "Rebus" (1883). Scan by --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support with a few requests: The image is signed in the lower left and the lower right - can you copy that information into the author field? I would, but it'd probably be more accurate done by a native Cyrillic speaker. Also, I believe the correct permission is {{PD-RusEmpire}} Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    Done. Some monograms there, they're not easy even for native. =) --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - it's fascinating to see that rebuses were also popular in 19th cenury Russia. Can you also include in the description box the 'content' of the rebus? Downtowngal (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic! More of those please, if possible. -- JovanCormac (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting! Maedin\talk 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 12:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Kochenmuehle.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 19:38:10
Kochenmühle

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Harke - nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXXtalk  19:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  19:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a good and clean photo of this building, but it is not outstanding. The technical quality is fairly good (may pass at COM:QIC), the composition is not particularly interesting, and the lightning is a little dull/flat. --Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Sodium polyacrylate.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Challiyil Eswaramangalath Vipin - uploaded by Challiyan - nominated by Sfu (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sfu (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It is an eye-catching photograph showing in an intriguing way what is in a diaper. Good lightning and colors. The image quality is fairly good, but could certainly be better for such a static studio shot. There are a few things though, which bothers be about the image:
    1. The different water-swollen spheres have different colors. Why is that so? That is not explained on the image page.
    2. There is this ring separating the green spheres from multicolored ones. I find it distracting. What is it?
    3. The source link does not work for me as a logon on Yahoo is required.
--Slaunger (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A scale would be useful. Yann (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the blurry area between the green and the colorful balls. -- JovanCormac 16:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am affraid sodium polyacrylate is colorless, so the title is confusing. --Chrumps (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Latrobe White House cropa2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 09:33:21
White house floor plan

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Benjamin Henry Latrobe - restored and uploaded by Durova - nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Highly detailed historical (1807) floor plan of the White House. Masterfully restored. Featured on EN already. -- JovanCormac (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A high resolution scan showing some interesting details of early white house design. I've looked at the LOC original and it is clear to me that a great effort has gone into restoring it, which is highly appreciated. I acknowledge that the floor plan is historically interesting. As I understand the roosm are not used in that exact way today. The technical quality is very good. The reason why I do not support is that the floor plan itself does not catch my eye in any way. There are rooms with some dimensions and some annotations telling about the intended purpose of each room. And...? Maybe it is just because I am not American that I cannot fully appreciate this floor plan, or maybe I am just ignorant... --Slaunger (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support evolution of landmark buildings, highly encyclopaedic and well done. GerardM (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I know nothing is stated against it in the rules, but I would say that personally I would have abstained from supporting my own creation, when another user had nominated, as it seems like having two "free" supports. I will open a thread about it at the talk page to open a discussion about it. --Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The last time someone nominated one of my restorations without notifying me, I did abstain. And people criticized me for not supporting it. It failed by a hair. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Durova (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh, I was not aware of that. I only personally dislike to sup own creations, when nominated by others. I see on the FPC talk page that I am fairly alone with that point of view, and I have accepted that this practise is OK, and that it is the will of the community. --Slaunger (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rama (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Muhammad (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:DesertStormMap v2.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 10:02:08
Desert Storm

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Jeff Dahl - nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Very informative map illustrating the Desert Storm campaign. High quality SVG. It really doesn't get any better than this. Already featured on EN. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kudos to the creator! It makes a very interesting desktop, as well. I do have to ask though, why is it EN always seems to have so many great images featured before we do? A comment on the nomination habits of the FP crowd, perhaps? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, in turn Commons has a lot of beautiful photographs featured that EN does not. It is mainly in the field of non-photographic images that they are a little ahead. -- JovanCormac (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Anonymous votes are not allowed. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is the SVG created such that the embedded text can easily be localized to other languages? --Slaunger (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I just looked at it with Inkscape and the answer is no, the labels are paths, not text objects. -- JovanCormac (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • OK. Thanks for checking it. That is a pity as it would be much more useful if it were localizable. --Slaunger (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A good illustration with a very high detail level, which must have taken a long time to create. However, I do not fancy that the text is not localizable. Secondly, I think the illustration is simply so overloaded with details that it is tending towards "clutter". --Slaunger (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Considering the Gulf War was the largest conflict since the Vietnam War, and involved over 2 million combatants, 3000 aircraft, 6 carrier battlegoups and much more besides, it's perhaps unsurprising that the overview is, as you say, a little cluttered. I don't see this as a huge problem; the scope and scale of the conflict can only be properly grasped when viewed in full. As an overview it works, though it would be useful to have major battles explored in seperate maps, to serve as a complement to the larger map. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't feel that this is at all cluttered, it is full of information and great detail about an event. If I were to read a book with an illustration similar to this in it, this is exactly the amount of detail I would want to find. Very well illustrated and put together. Julielangford (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - wow! As Julielangford. Downtowngal (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 13:36:55
Sydney Opera House

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Diliff - nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I think nothing needs to be said here. Just a beautiful picture. -- JovanCormac (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Olivier Jaulent (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, the bright light right-of-centre is quite disturbing, but I guess it cannot be avoided. --Aqwis (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Diti the penguin 16:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support/Daniel78 (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  17:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perfect --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. I added (an approximate) heading to the geolocation. --Slaunger (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vprisivko (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, absolutely beautiful. G.A.S 15:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Matasg 21:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Words actually fail me with this. All I can say is Wow! Julielangford (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support meh it's OK (j/k) --ianaré (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - "Instantly one knows it's an Iliff." Downtowngal (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Paris 16 (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Silver Spoon (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Tagpfauenauge, Inachis io auf Astrantia major, Großer Sterndolde 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 20:30:40
Inachis io on Astrantia major

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Bufo americanus PJC1.jpg, featured[edit]

Eastern American Toad

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas --Cephas (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd probably support this from the frog's expression alone. Though the excellent composition certainly helps as well. --Calibas (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Doesn't he look grumpy? :-) Maedin\talk 12:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To be perfectly honest, I find the background distracting. --JalalV (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the picture, but it could use a denoise and the removal of the piece of grass between the toad's eyes. -- JovanCormac 16:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is not anormal for an animal crawling in grass to have a piece of grass between the eyes, or anywhere else. It's not the toad fashion show! ;-) - I don't think it should be removed. --Cephas (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think he means the grass in the background if you look right above the middle of the eyes. I found that part of the background the most distracting part. --JalalV (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, but I don't master picture software well enough to do a good job for this. If somebody wants to do it... --Cephas (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's unnecessary to remove the piece of grass. I can't see the point in taking pictures in a natural environment if you then want to remove said natural environment. Why would you say, "what a great looking toad, but shame there is a teensy, tiny element of its natural habitat near its eye." Seriously? Maedin\talk 07:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great image as is --ianaré (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Cow (Fleckvieh breed) Oeschinensee Slaunger 2009-07-07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 23:56:24
Fleckvieh cow in Switzerland

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A cow (Fleckvieh breed) near Oeschinen Lake in Switzerland at an altitude of 1575 m. Please note that Commons already have a (very good) FP of a Swiss cow (Swiss Braunvieh breed) in a quite similar pose by Dschwen taken at a significantly higher altitude of about 2520 m, and I totally respect if the reviewers here feel that the existing one is enough (and superior) to my nom.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Such great expression on the animal in this shot. She really looks very grumpy, and not at all impressed. Lovely shot. Julielangford (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Sadly, the snout exhibits blown whites. Could probably be retouched though. -- JovanCormac 17:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees-edit.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 00:04:29
Crowds line the Champs Elysees, 1944

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jack Downey, corrected and uploaded by Julielangford, nominated by Yann (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It was color corrected from last nomination. It is a great image of a historical event. Yann (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It was a great image to start off with. Great recording of our history. Julielangford (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp -- downright blurry in the corners, really sharp nowhere ; vignetting. Nothing special -- it's a trivial shot of passing mecanised grunts, composition and PoV are not breathtaking. No wow factor. Rama (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Such an important moment which links in with so many articles. Many in France view this moment with great relief still. 81.106.99.197 23:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Please login, anonymous votes will not be counted. Thank you. --ianaré (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Historically significant, but IMO this needs a restoration before it can be featured. -- JovanCormac 17:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, previous nomination (original version): here --Aqwis (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I will nominate a restored version. Yann (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

File:The Crypte.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 04:31:13
The royal crypt below Brussels

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Abigor - uploaded by Abigor - nominated by Abigor -- Huib talk 04:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Huib talk 04:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, excellent shot! The black & white and the slight tilt are perfect for the crypt's ambiance. --Calibas (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now this is a picture with atmosphere! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting image.--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    How do you want me to do that? Its on both ends a dead end, it doesn't matter where I stand.. There will be stones cut off. Huib talk 15:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    I would like to be able to read the entire text on at least one of the gravestones maybe upper left. If it is impossible to take such an image I will change my vote for support.--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    Its to bad in that case, this location (The Royal Belgium Crypt) isn't normally free to visit and I don't think I will get a second change like this, and the location is a 257.6 km drive, so its not close by to go back. Huib talk 17:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the balance and peace in the picture. --MGA73 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why it's desaturated? kallerna 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Why not? Diti the penguin 22:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • There would be much more value to Commons with colours. kallerna 10:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    I have a HDR almost ready, but that is with a complete different mood. Huib talk 10:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Matasg 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 18:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - great subject and composition, but not sharp enough Downtowngal (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose only because it's tilted, something that could be fixed. -- H005 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - fixed - Huib talk 04:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Yep, looks much better now! -- H005 (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, very nice. Silver Spoon (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Phrynosoma hernandesi (Calibas).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 04:48:05
A Horny Toad

result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Aerogelflower filtered.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 13:26:18
Aerogel and flower

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by (Unknown@NASA) - uploaded by Matt - retouched & nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A beautiful and educational picture illustrating the amazing insulating properties of aerogel. A previous nomination of the original file failed because the voters complained about image noise. So I filtered the picture and re-uploaded it, resulting in this version, which hardly exhibits any noise at all. -- JovanCormac (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes! Diti the penguin 15:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Two+two=4 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 18:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very convincing illustration of the very low thermal conductance of this aerogel. --Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Much better than before, but it's a little grainy in spots on the petals and look at where the green meets the black. The edges could be a little cleaner. Did you use the original? My edit may have gave you something worse to start with. Rocket000 (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • No, I used the current version, which I though was better because it already had some damage (scratches) removed which I don't have the skill to do. -- JovanCormac 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Bank of Tanzania golden hour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 16:35:29
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not called the “golden hour” for nothing! Diti the penguin 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A beautiful, understated picture. -- JovanCormac 08:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - beautiful work at making important but ugly modern buildings worth looking at. I like the desaturation of the spit of land behind them too. Downtowngal (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically excellent, but the subject does not fascinate me in any way. -- H005 (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good image, but why nomination for FP? --Karel (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
    No. These are the requirements for QI, which it meets, d'accord. But an FP is a QI with a "wow!" factor, and I'm completely missing that factor here. -- H005 (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    See Downtowngal's comment above. -Muhammad (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    "an FP is a QI with a "wow!" factor": From my experience, there is no consensus on that. Confusingly enough, while the Featured Pictures page states that FPs are "some of the finest pictures on Commons", it doesn't give an actual definition of what precisely makes a Featured Picture featured. While the so-called "wow-factor" is an oft-quoted criterion used internally by many voters, looking through the FP library (especially the non-photographic images) you will undoubtedly find many pictures totally lacking in "wow", yet having some particular quality that by itself justifies them being featured. In this case here, it could be as Downtowngal stated: The art of making an ugly building look beautiful. -- JovanCormac 10:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as H005. Personally, I do not fancy the GFDL-1.2 only license either, as this limits the images usefullness on Wikimedia projects. For instance it cannot be used on the German wikipedia. --Slaunger (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa cardui, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 20:14:38
Vanessa cardui on Buddleja davidii

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Saturn during Equinox.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 20:30:07
Image of Saturn during equinox taken by Cassini.

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I added the original caption, it mentions that there should be 6 moons in the image, thats how many "spots" I see. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes I am pretty sure that it is a moon. Also thanks for adding the original caption When I uploaded it I tried to condense it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Tongerloo abbey-Panorama.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 21:41:41
Panorama of the Tongerloo abbey in Westerlo, Belgium

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by JH-man - uploaded by JH-man - nominated by JH-man -- JH-man (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Just put a lot of work into this and wanted to see where it would end up. Be gentle 'cause it's just a lousy Powershot ;-) JH-man (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I realized the colors looked a little bland and needed a boost, so I produced a v2 that looks more pleasing(nobody voted yet so no impact).JH-man (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Tongerloo abbey-Panorama-v2.jpg
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think you have done well. I am indifferent concerning which edit. It is an interesting building, and the quality is good. A Powershot is not bad at all, you can make very fine panos with such a camera, when you use several images as you have done. Out of curiosity. How much time have you spend stitching it manually in Photoshop? Ever considered using other software for this purpose such as Hugin? --Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest and support! Well, to give you an idea from what I started, here File:Tongerloo_abbey-Panorama-stitch_start.jpg is how it looked after lining up the segments. I spent more or less the entire evening. Most of the trouble was in the clouds. I had some 'in between' pictures also, from which I was able to extract a couple of complete clouds that fit in better, but that still left trouble with inconsistent shades in the sky that needed to be corrected. Then I also had to remake the final picture after I realized that I had forgotten to work on the edges of the parts than ran through the building itself and the grass field, lol. But anyway, I have fun with those things so it wasn't too bad. I didn't try panorama software because somehow I didn't expect that to reach the kind of quality (without further extensive editing) that I would be able to reach manually in Photoshop? Also because I didn't use a tripod. Took the pics freehand.... But maybe I should look into that software. JH-man (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I have never used a tripod for my panos on Commons, which all except one has been taken hand held with a compact camera (I used a stone as support for one pano). I have always used Hugin for stitching. Despite that, the two panos i have ever nominated has been promoted. I do not think I could achieve the same results by manual stitching. But it depends on the how well you master which tool of course. I would consider linking to the initial edit instead of showing it here, as it is distracting for other reviewers. --Slaunger (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the color-boosted version. I was amazed to read that this is manually stitched. The stitch is absolutely perfect. -- JovanCormac 17:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support color boosted. either. Hand stitched? Impressive. --JalalV (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - either version, but I prefer the original version - more in the spirit of an abbey. Nice job. Downtowngal (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Either version because they are both excellent Julielangford (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the original. Color boosted version is just oversaturated. Nice work. kallerna 11:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support color-boosted version, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
original result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
version 1 result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Tableau 31 Indians hunting the bison by Karl Bodmer.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 22:39:08
Indians hunting the bison

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Peilican.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 09:32:55

Original, not featured[edit]

Pelican (Pelecanus rufescens)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Julielangford - uploaded by Julielangford - nominated by Julielangford -- Julielangford (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Julielangford (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The animal is good, but the background is too disturbing… :( Diti the penguin 10:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy.--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice composition, and colours. I like the background, but the image has lots of noise as pointed out by other reviewers. I have uploaded a noise reduced edit for your consideration. --Slaunger (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    Now nominated below as a separate edit. --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose orginal in favor of edit. --Slaunger (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Cool, and thanks Slaunger. What happens now, should we replace mine with your edit? Add yours here for consideration instead? I don't know how this part of it works here. I am working on a noise reduced version myself, but not sure how to do it Julielangford (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Usual practise is to let both of them "compete" if there are users supporting an alternative. If both versions end up fulfilling normal requitrements, the version with the largest number of supports wins. If you decide to upload a noise reduced version yourself, you can either upload it as a new version of your original, or under a new file name. I would recommend the latter solution as otherwise it is a mess to figure out which revision of an image with a given file name a reviewer was voted on. --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--ComputerHotline (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    In refactoring the nomination page I assumed youur support goes to the original. Please move your vote if I have misinterpreted that. --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the info about the best way to upload my own noise reduced version. I have now created it and uploaded it, but how do I add it here? Should I just replace the original file name on this one, or add it under yours below as a new entry? I would like to add it here at some point, as I spent quite a long time over the edit, making sure that noise was reduced only on the background, to preserve the detail of the bird - so the feedback would be really useful. Julielangford (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    I think that adding it as another edit to choose from below as you have done is the right way to do it. --Slaunger (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

noise reduced/sharpened edit, not featured[edit]

Pelican (Pelecanus rufescens)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I would not mind this edit as an FP, but I think the creators own edit below is slightly better. Thus, I move my support to that edit. --Slaunger (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Slaunger's edit I actually think the water in the background looks really cool. -- JovanCormac 05:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Julie's below is a little better yet. -- JovanCormac 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Slaunger's edit is definitely FP quality. I forsake it only for one that is even better. -- JovanCormac 15:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The above image is not Slaunger edit but even Slaunger edit still has some noise and a red line on the feather.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • OOps. It is now the correct photo which is shown. Thanks for noticing. --Slaunger (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Regarding noise reduction, there is deliberately some noise left. You have to have some noise to keep the texture and a natural reproduction of surfaces in a photo. Whenever you apply a noise filter you also remove information, and I am normally reluctant to do so. However, when there is noise in a smooth surface as in the background of this image, noise reduction can normally be applied without loosing too much information. It could certainly have been done better though. One of the most evident ways it could be done better was by masking the background and only apply a (more agressive) filter there. However, the edititon of Noiseware I have is a standalone version, where masking cannot be done, so it is applied globally in this case. --Slaunger (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Slaunger's edit - as JovanCormac Downtowngal (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Noise Reduced Version 2, featured[edit]

Pelican (Pelecanus rufescens)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Julielangford (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Masked out main subject to preserve detail then applied noise reduction on mainly blue channel of the background, but also a small amount overall to the water. Julielangford (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's getting a little confusing now... 3 versions to vote on! I have examined both noise edits carefully, and think that Julie's is indeed better. So I propose we merge those edits into one candidate, and give people the choice between original and Julie's edit. -- JovanCormac 12:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It happens quite often that there are several versions to choose from at FPC and I do not think it is particularly confusing. I have of course the option of withdrawing my edit (which I may indeed do, haven't decided yet), but it is really up to the nominator of an edit to withdraw it. If you find Julies edit is better you should just support it and consider changing the vote for my edit to neutral or oppose depending on how you feel about it. --Slaunger (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree in priciple, but my fear is that this beautiful picture might not get promoted at all if the votes are "split in three". -- JovanCormac 15:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Moved my vote to Julie's as you suggested. -- JovanCormac 15:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes,you are somewhat correct that this is an inherent danger in the process. The problem is that there aren't many alternatives, unless you want even more confusion figuring out exactly which version which user has voted on. But maybe it would be worthwhile mentioning how other version of a nomination should be handled in the guidelines. For instance the nominator could actively post to the user talk pages of users who have voted or commented on the nomination page to ask them to also consider new edits. Also the nomination period could be reset whenever a new version is nominated to give more time. Only problem is that it ends up at the button of the page, where only a few users see it. The best strategy is of course to make sure the first version you nominate is optimal such that editing is not needed. Commons:Photography critiques can be used to get feedback prior to nomination as well, although that page is not as active as one could wish for...--Slaunger (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, the feature is not actually that important, but the feedback is. Because of the feedback on this image, I have managed to create a much finer photograph than the original, for which I am truly grateful to contributers. A feature of course, would be a fabulous bonus :) The critique given on my other photograph below has also been useful, and I am now considering a crop to remove the left monkey, so, this page is definitely proving valuable to me. Julielangford (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agreed JovanCormac, yes, it's very confusing, and please accept my apologies for making it so. I find the feedback here so valuable though, and I like to act on it if it is within my capabilities, so I thought it worthwhile uploading the edit, for further critique. Julielangford (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    I do not think you need to apologize at all. This process is quite normal and you are doing exactly what a dedicated creator and image editor should do IMO at FPC; take criticism on board, and try to address it if you agree and fix it is within your capabilities. --Slaunger (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the background in our edits are equally good. However, the fact that you have used a mask makes the subject stand out as slightly more detailed and with a more natural texture as compared to my edit. Nice work. --Slaunger (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Julie's edit. It's a little more detailed on the beak than the other one. -- JovanCormac 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 11:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. Yann (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Structure of the Universe.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 16:14:57
SHORT DESCRIPTION

    • Are we certain this is not copyrighted by E. Hallman or University of Boulder or ESA? 75.41.110.200 16:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per JovanCormac. The stitching together ruins its quality. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Those lines are not the result of a stitch but as far as I understand meant to illustrate axes. The image shown a cube of space and its internal structure. I should not be seen as three sides of a cube but a half-transparent cob-web like structure illustrating how dark matter is distributed in a cube of space. Whether this is done elegantly or not is an entirely different matter (personally I think cause more confusion than clarification).
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Golden-Marmot.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 19:35:54
Golden Marmot

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the photo is overexposed, not sharp and has overall bad image quality. --Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC) 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.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Despite my comment above, I still think it is an interesting photo in the animals natural environment. We only have a few quite low quality images of this species, and new ones are welcome, so do not be discouraged. --Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Image:Cattedrale Loreto square panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 20:00:38
Loreto Cathedral square , Italia (panorama)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Paolo Benvenuto - uploaded by Paolo Benvenuto - nominated by Paolo Benvenuto -- DonPaolo (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- DonPaolo (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please add some information on how the stitch has been made - how many photos, software, further processing. Also please add a geolocation. It adds value to the file description page. --Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the light is not good and something strange next to the boy and elderly lady.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Two+two=4--Claus (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Two+two=4 (the "strange thing" is probably a stitching error). -- JovanCormac 05:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, needs exposure correction and more care with the stitching. (I'm willing to give it a try myself, if you can provide the original photos.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Bromine_vial_in_acrylic_cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 20:47:30
the chimical element bromine secure sealed in a acrylic cube

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not very sharp, but printed the quality is good nevertheless. Diti the penguin 09:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality-wise, this cannot compete with the silver photo above. But I am also a little concerned about EV: This cube is an object created as a way to display bromine in the physical world (i.e. a "hands-on" object). I'm not sure that a photo of such an object is adequate to illustrate the element. It might illustrate "acrylic cube", but for that the picture IMO is not crisp enough. -- JovanCormac 10:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • To Alchemist-hp: Btw I think your project to upload a pretty picture for every element is a great idea. Hopefully, we will soon have photos like your silver and tungsten ones for all elements. -- JovanCormac 10:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    not tungsten. It is titanium ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah, you're right. Got it wrong. -- JovanCormac 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • it is simple: bromine is a dangerous and toxic element. If you like to show it to other peoples then you must have a glas vial. Only a glas vial (=ampoule) is a fragile item. It is important to seal it. The best method is to embed it in acrylic. It is very dificult to take from an unvisible item a picture. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • please look also at the german discussion side.
      • I did, and now I know about the problems of handling bromine which makes taking an "open" shot of it difficult. But I still think a shot like this with less "packaging" would be better, and I agree with others on the discussion page that the scale is irrelevant for a liquid. -- JovanCormac 18:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
        • yes the scale is irrelevat only for a liquid, but not for an acrylic cube with a vial including a liquid ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - assuming that the ampoule is orange so that it is visible inside the cube, what color is the bromine? It appears black but maybe it is a different color. Please state its color in the description. Downtowngal (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)