Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2010

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

Contents

File:Kairo Ibn Tulun Moschee BW 7.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 12:51:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- FieldMarine (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Can you please fix the tilt? --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Please check again. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well, not quite perfect (note the left side of the cylindrical portion of the tower) but good enough for me. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Because I'm sure the (very little) tilt will be soon corrected, and the dustspot removed... It is a very nice picture, and very useful too.--Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- why not try another angle and composition. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I realize the somewhat harsh light is probably quite fitting for the desert-like appearance of the subject, but it is little to hard for my taste. Would have taken it earlier on the day if shadows permitted (which I do not know)? Othe observation, which has no influence on my review. I think there is still a dust sport left, see annotation, and I noticed that in full res the sky appeared quite noisy. Not that I think it can be seen in a printout, but on screen it is noticeable and you may consider doing a selective noise reduction on the sky. --Slaunger (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Dustspots removed, sky denoised. The light may appeare harsh to you, but it was already a bit dull by the smog of Cairo :-( --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you Berthold. I have removed the annotation. --Slaunger (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support composition --Böhringer (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral nice but low cut. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice compositionAnkara (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - LeavXC (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good composition and quality. high ev. could you please fix the levels? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Mx flower01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 17:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mandevilla Sanderi
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor lighting (built-in flash usually gives very reflective, flat lighting, unless used correctly as fill flash). LeavXC (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, --Cvmontuy (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per LeavXC. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting, composition, FPX ? --Elekhh (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral If someone good at channels can lighten up the BG, I might consider {{support}}-ing. It's a bit distracting. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSorry. We have in "Commons" a very nice gallery of featured flowers and plants, and as a non specialist, I may say that this one is really far from usual FP standards I'm afraid. Only a small part is in focus, the light is very bad, I don't understand the composition. I do not how to use the FPX template (a tool I dislike), but...--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2010 (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 Not much is in focus, the flash light is very bad, and the composition is not good. --Slaunger (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2010 (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.

File:I. DeFrancisci & Son macaroni machines, 219 Morgan Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (July 1917).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 17:51:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I. DeFrancisci & Son macaroni machines, 219 Morgan Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (July 1917).jpg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by I. DeFrancisci & Son - uploaded by FieldMarine - nominated by FieldMarine -- FieldMarine (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I.DeFrancisci & Son industrial macaroni machine makers from July 1917. All the machinery in the plant was run off a pulley/belt system located on the ceiling, which you can see in the picture. The belt system was powered by a single generator and you attach a belt from the system on the ceiling to the machine you want to run (see machine on far left for an example). This was state of the art for 1917.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- FieldMarine (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- This has great historical value for Wikipedia. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Just for info. Commons ise not only for Wikipedia. All the sites with mediawiki can use commons directly. Like Ansiklopedika.org. Mulazimoglu (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Per Murdockcrc. But contrast could be improved. -- Onno Zweers (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support valuable --Mile (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose although of high historic and educational value this image could need some rework. a levels adjustment, proper colour toning, increasing sharpness, decreasing jpg artifacts. a digital restoration can add new qualities, but would be very time consuming and would require a better source image. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Every vintage b/w or sepia photo of the early 20th century may have a high historic value. But I think we cannot promote or feature here all of them, if they have not a very high technical value, or if strong mitigating reasons for not. I'm sorry, but per Peter Weis, it is not the case here, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info I’ve looked through the commons & I’ve seen very few photographs of machine shops shown in this way from this time period. There are a few here, but maybe I’m not looking in the right place. FieldMarine (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad contrast, I don't like the sepia tone. Yann (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose needs restoration. --Elekhh (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The subject — a state-of-the-art (of its time) macaroni machine shop — is very interesting and I like the scene, composition, expression of the faces and there are some quite nice details like the shoes. I would be willing to support after a serious restoration job to fix some of the technical problems mentioned by other reviewers. --Slaunger (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 17:17:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

„Torfeno Branishte“ (Turf Reserve), the natural reserve on Vitosha Mountain, Bulgaria.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lighting conditions are great! --Murdockcrc (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Teknik açıdan başarısız. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 08:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice clouds, but the foreground is unexciting, and the peaks are too much in shadow. --Avenue (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A bit too much shadow. I'm not enamoured with the clouds, so seeing 2/3 of the picture dominated by them doesn't inspire me. Nice lighting and texture on the ground. --99of9 (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose plateau better shows pointing more down. More vertical more flat. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It gives what a promises - A picture of a field. I think the real problem is maybe they'd like some green from spring, but it's currently autumn.. =\ Support. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting place, colors and light, but I find the yellow-black poles distracting. --Slaunger (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Torreón de Minguela desde el cauce del Valcorba.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 16:48:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ruins of the church of Minguela (Bahabón, Valladolid, Spain)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Rastrojo (DES)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Rastrojo (DES) 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- First of all the right crop is disturbing. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the bush and the crop at the right made the wow-factor to me --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition. --99of9 (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see the intention with the stark composition, but it does not work for me. --Elekhh (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crop, and no subject to be featured for me. Yann (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per crop comments above. Jujutacular talk 05:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tree Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems a bit underexposed to me. --Aktron (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Porto Covo November 2010-2a.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 16:35:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The main square of Porto Covo in a winter day, Portugal (detail). Much better than my other pictures of the same subject. Everyting by Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Alvesgaspar, I am shocked! You should know better than to crop it to tightly. As someone once said, "Let the poor thing..." Smile --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Please set a good example and comment on the image, not the photographer. Also, if you don't allude to previous discussions, your review will be easier for new readers to understand. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Just pointing out that Alvesgaspar is usually the one who points out tight crops. A bit of an inside joke. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I understood the context of your remark, but the new people may not. You are one of the major nominators and reviewers on FPC and provide an example of how to communicate here. With influence comes responsibility. But, anyone can understand that you thought the subject was cropped too closely. That clarity is one of the attributes that make your reviews helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No offense taken. The comment was funny, though not applicable in this situation (plenty of air in the backyard ;-) ). Anyway, fun is the major motivation of many people here, including me. Please don't take it away! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not too tight. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The main challenge with this nice square seems to be the composition, given the horizontal nature of the subject and the difficultly shaped trees, located close to the buildings. This 2007 detail works because an angle has been found where the trees do not obscure the main elements of the façade. In contrast in this nomination the tree obscures a window and a roof element, which is more disturbing as it happens close to the center of the image. I would suggest a left crop, so that the tree in front of the window becomes more marginal. This angle was more favourable, although it has to deal with the dark pine which attracts too much attention. I find the dark pine, when included, is better shown cut than as a whole as here and here. I also like the overall view. --Elekhh (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Thanks for your carefull review, Elekhh! This subject is an endless fascination for me and winter light is much better than summer's. As a side note, that is not a pine tree but an Araucaria heterophylla. It was introduced in Portugal in the 19th century, some say, using a single individual from which all existing trees descend. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I thought it was a Norfolk Island Pine, sorry for using the Australian vernacular name ;) --Elekhh (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Touché! I did not realize you were from Australia... Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
          • To be precise not "from" but "in". En guard... --Elekhh (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These pictures of this village make me love it without knowing it. I'm trully sorry, but I'm disapointed by the crop of the house at right.--Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- That was cropped on purpose for aesthetical reasons, as it would be a too large white area if it were kept. Please check here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the info. It is a good reason, but cannot be known at first when looking on this only picture.--Jebulon (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- For me the crop is just fine but the image looks so artificial. Maybe too much work on the original imageMulazimoglu (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- No work at all on the original. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Than theres a technical problem. Bina çok parlak görünüyor. Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, the houses are painted white. Anything else? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
No. Mulazimoglu (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice view, good composition (acceptable crop, although rather tight indeed), excellent technical quality, pleasant colors, encyclopedic value. -- MJJR (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now. Decently, I cannot oppose because of my original reason. Sharpness and colors are very good. This square is really charming, and after many reflections, I've decided to change my vote... But please, remove the little dustspot left in the sky, near the little cloud (annotation)--Jebulon (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Jebulon, I will remove the two spots (plus the spurious branch at left). I'm very careful with my nominations but those little bastards succeded to pass through the net. I'm about to hereby Jebulon the Great Barnstar of Dust Spot Detectors! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too ordinal look for me. Clear QI, but far not FP by composition. Nothing outstanding, sorry --George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, right part building missing. --Karelj (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose After having read the lenghty and interesting discussion. I think the crop is unfortunate. I realize not much can be done with it. I like the May FP better. The light, detail level and colors are very good as well as the atmosphere. --Slaunger (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I feel a bit dismayed with the outcome as these were wonderful lighting conditions and the picture is close to the best I can do. I still have another version though... Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Darth vader hot air balloon.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 15:54:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment for those concerned about copyrights, etc., etc., etc., this picture was taken at the International Hot Air Ballon Festival in Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico. It is a public event, in a public place, and there are no freedom of panorama issues. This is the web site for the festival: [[1]]. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Possibly Support good quality, but those two balloons in the foreground are almost in the way. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe badly-cropped green ballon in foreground is really disturbing. Sorry. About copyrights etc., etc., etc., I should be happy if the law ware the same in all countries around the world, but it is not the case. The public situation of a public event in a public place described here could nevertheless generate some freedom of panorama issues in some countries.--Jebulon (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    Yeah, e.g. the Panoramafreiheit in Germany wouldn't apply to this image AFAIK - the piece of art is not permanently located in a public place and doesn't even conserve its shape... Grand-Duc (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, let the dabate take place where it pops up. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's a good composition. Happy dude who is not aware that the dark lord approaches :) --Lošmi (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great composition, nice colors. I like the contrast between Darth Vader and the smiling face. Yann (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support First came Spongebob, and now the Dark Lord. This is so great. That Darth Vader hot air balloon is unlike anything else I have ever seen. The guys who actually contructed that are crazy. The lightning of it just perfect. It is placed perfectly in the photo, and the coincidental appearance of the happy camper, unaware of the dark side hovering above it, just peeking past the green ballon is really funny. I know we are normally dead serious here at FPC, but it is very refreshing to see these air balloons. I do not think I can justify supporting a third one though (I know you withdrew another one), as I could hardly argue that our FP gallery needs another one to show an adequate diversity of subjects. --Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I showed this to a Star Wars collegue at work today and he thought it was 718smiley.svg Awesome!. --Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Not crazy, Slaunger. But probably Belgians, If I trust the flag !!--Jebulon (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice contrast. --Avenue (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - LeavXC (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--shizhao (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good all! Mastery. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support interesting composition Gnangarra 02:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would tend to say: No composition at all. --Niabot (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is good composition, so so composition and bad composition that is a function of arrangement of elements, outside of the aesthetical elements of the subjects or the image itself. So if you don´t like the composition, just say so, and as a courtesy, you could explain what you do not like about the arrangement, suggest possible solutions, instead of just condemming an image with a sterile statement. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The main motive of this image is "Darth Vader". Clearly visible by its weight (dark, large area). But then on the other hand you have that tiny little ballon looking around the corner, with strong colors. This distracts the eye from the main motive, that now itself in this composition looks bad. Or better said: Out of place. (Basically it is like mixing green and red colors. The result is mostly not pleasant. Same in this case) --Niabot (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above, problems with composition and overexposed in down left corner. --Karelj (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I´d rather have you say you do not like it outright. Composition follows the rule of thirds. Composition is good, subject matter may not be to your liking, but they are hot air balloons after all. As far as the supposed overexposure, there is no such thing. Light in the horizon is always lighter at the bottom, especially in the early morning hours, as you can see from the light direction. And in anycase, considering dynamic range, dark subject, etc., etc. exposure is adequate.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles

File:Peak of Jabal Ram.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 20:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Svíčková - nominated by me -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info withdrew last nomination.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Colors too weak. Contrast not good for me. Kompozisyon ve açı da iyi görünmüyor. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Colors look good enough for me. The composition is very original and creative. Technically, contrast could indeed be improved, but I think this image fits the requirements of a FP. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some months ago, I read this Sorry, Jebulon, but I believe (and always defended) that no national flags or religious symbols should be featured because there is too much beyond the mere graphical value of the image. (as far as I know none was promoted). This rule his still valuable IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's a rule so much as a personal philosophy, at least I don't recall seeing it. And it's not just a flag, it's a flag painted on a mountain! =0 I thought it was interesting. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
      • You thought right IMO: It is interesting ! But some opposed to my flag that featuring a flag (Luxembourg) was not "neutral". I think that for some, maybe, featuring this (Jordan) flag could be considered as non neutral neither, and against the "Commons" policy, even if (because of ?) painted on rocks...--Jebulon (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- FieldMarine (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cut flag Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The sky is a bit noisy. I would support it otherwise.Kirua (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice colors, DOF, composition and atmosphere from an interesting place. Unfortunately I do not think the technical quality is up quite to 2010 FP standards. --Slaunger (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Bolinus cornutus 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2010 at 16:05:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Bolinus cornutus, Muricidae, Horned Murex; Length 13,5 cm; Originating from Nouadhibou, Mauritania; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Camel and the pyramids.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2010 at 11:55:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tourists riding a bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus) in front of Pyramid of Khafre.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna kallerna 11:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Egyptians making their living through tourists. kallerna 11:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In spite of a very "turisty" look of the image Smile --Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The angle makes it seem like a 'middle of the desert location' when in fact, it is 100m from a golf course and an urban neighbourhood of Cairo. --Shuki (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition! -- MJJR (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good! --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Good but might be better. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the composition is not well balance IMO.. ie. too much sky to the top-left.. not the best crop of the right pyramid.. not ideal composition of the tourists/Egyptian.. Ggia (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeTechnically good, maybe very good, but I don't see anything featurable here.--Jebulon (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would like to see more of the right pyramid, and also the rest of the shadow of the camel in the foreground. Both tend to lead my eye out of the picture. Sorry. - LeavXC (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I quite like the composition. Some very different sized objects are in good balance. I think seeing more of the right pyramid would overwhelm the other subjects. --99of9 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Weighting the composition to the right via the angle of the pyramid and the sky to the top-left is a great way to draw the eye to the people, yet still include the pyramids themselves as part of the subject matter. In other words, you may not find it personally attractive, but the composition does have good balance and is highly educational. Steven Walling 21:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the composition apart from the pyramid to the right. Unlike others, I would like to see a little less of the largest pyramid. I think the slant line of that pyramid should have intersected the upper right corner. Not possible with the nominated photo though as it would have cut the tourists in half. Light is very good. I am not too fond of the touristic theme either, albeit I acknowledge it is a natural element around the pyramids and they add a good sense of scale. --Slaunger (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but I agree with Slaunger. Composition problem --George Chernilevsky talk 09:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Ephippiger HD.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2010 at 07:17:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ephippiger provincialis
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for now, but may change my vote if the specular reflexions are removed by some smart cloning. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question -- Was the critter was alive? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It is not easy to see that he is naturalized. To 11 image with moving the camera must be stationary subjects (particularly antennas) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support scary but good. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Nearly oppose Edges are a bit strong and overall it's pretty unrealistic. I want to oppose out of principle because this is overworked yet what FPC is more likely to pass than a natural photograph of an insect - Kind of a shame. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This image is very special. It has a purpose: to see, as the most accurate, the anatomy of the insect. If I had the idea of placing mounted insects on flowers you would not see. For him there is no ambiguity, my laboratory work remain on artificial background. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Elekhh (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The focus stacking works very well. I noticed an area (see annotation), which appears softer or not as crisp as remaining parts of the insect. Why is that? --Slaunger (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well observed. But that kind of detail that often see after several hours. The positioning of the micrometer screw is at hand and sometimes the gap is not the ideal range. It takes a picture and then advance the tray, and you tighten a screw stabilization. It is often uneven tightening which created a gap. You can not redo a single picture must redo the entire series. It is a work of patience but we must practice a lot closer to a good result. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for clarifying. It is certainly a very minor technical detail and not something to make a big fuzz over. I was just curios regarding origin of my observation. --Slaunger (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:20100913 Ancient Theater Marwneia Rhodope Greece panoramic 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2010 at 17:54:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ancient theater of Maronia, Thrace, Greece.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ggia - uploaded by Ggia - nominated by Ggia -- Ggia (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ggia (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose quality seems good to me, but the composition does not look featured. The crop at bottom is tight, and the standpoint at this lighting conditions are imo not ideal (hard shadows). Sorry --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support quality is good. afternoon light is a bit harsh but okay in this case. the composition works for me - the content is centered and rules of thirds works out well. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Same ideas and near ideas with kaʁstn Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Onno Zweers (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose deep shadows Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You took a great photo of a currently very ugly setting. IMO I don't find it a nice enough picture to be labeled our best. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It is very hard to make a good photo of something which is under construction as this theater is. I find a lot of the garbage, construction materials and fence to the right is distracting. On the other hand it sort of belongs to the scenary as it is work in progress. It is informative and valuable to see the theater in the middle of the restructuring, but I am not really convinced it is FP-level. --Slaunger (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry.. but this is how the ancient theater looks like... and this is a recent.. photo.. If you visit that theater you will have this view. Ggia (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I realize the photo is recent Smile. I should have written repairs or reconstruction to be more precise. It is clear that some parts are brand new and others are the original ancient parts. Do you mean that all repairs have ceased on the theater and nothing is being done for the time being? --Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Jambiya.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2010 at 00:50:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jambiya from Yemen

*Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe object itself is really featurable, because of quality and high EV. But the background is really ugly, dirty (dust), and noisy. But sure I'll support with a good and solid black masking.--Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have imported a new picture with a better background. --Bgag (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support now, it is much better IMO. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Given changes to background. Jujutacular talk 05:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zhuk (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Good, but the knife seems a little dead just lying on its side. I think it would be more interesting rotated 90° or 120° anticlockwise. --Avenue (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support although I think a little better description of this particular Jambiya would be helpful. --FieldMarine (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ggia (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- A blood stain on the blade would be a nice touch... Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--shizhao (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 21:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose dirty cutout at the bottom right. Could 1000x better if it had a nice background. No sense for composition. --Niabot (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support The picture is perfect for encyclopedic purposes. It's not a composition contest. It's a picture that most perfectly represents the object.sorry no anonymous votes --Jebulon (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree with this anonymous comment.--Jebulon (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Conditional oppose The photo is fine, but we need for information on the file page about this particular Jambiya. Adds value. Most important would be a description of the hilt material, which is an important (and price determining) aspect of the dagger. Also, what is the blade made of? If these data are added I will be happy to support. --Slaunger (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The blade is of steel but I don't have more information about the hilt except it is made of hard wood. I have added this information in the description. --Bgag (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you for adding what you know. It was not evident for me that the hilt was made of hard wood, so although it is not very precise, you have still added value to the file page. --Slaunger (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Punta de las Gaviotas R02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2010 at 22:38:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Punta de las Gaviotas, Tenerife
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting could be better. LeavXC (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me light is ok + very nice panorama --Pudelek (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Pudelek -- Onno Zweers (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose dark corners in bottom Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not particularly amazing scenery but well-executed and taken. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Highly detailed. Quite ordinary composition, light seems a bit harsh/washed out. Assuming the time 12:33 on the file page is correct, this is perhaps not so surprising. A morning or nocturnal shot would probably have given a better atmosphere. --Slaunger (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Sunset at Ocean Beach in San Francisco.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2010 at 16:44:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunset at Ocean Beach in San Francisco.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sunset at Ocean Beach in San Francisco
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for very nice and impressive colors and composition --George Chernilevsky talk 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- We have recently learned that impressive colors and composition is not enough for a picture to be featured. I see a beautiful place in this picture bot nothing else. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course the image has a value. It shows sunset over ocean with w:sun glitter with reflection. Besides the image was taken at a negative (-1 foot) low tide, a relatively rare event. So one could see how far the ocean has gone back.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
"One could see" the extent of the tide only in the file description though, there's nothing in the image which would allude to that. --Elekhh (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect, only with a very low tide one could see the reflection in a wet sand.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- That may be true, but it isn't obvious, especially to people that live inland such as me. A land-dweller like me would also figure that the reflections are seen because of the lighting, not the tide (it doesn't take a low tide to get sand wet). A better representation of low tide is found in the top two pictures of this article. The second picture alone shows that the sea is at low tide. This is because the boat serves as a visual indicator of tide for the viewers. As such, I agree with Elekhh: there's nothing which would allude to it. LeavXC (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
IMO it is a wrong statement. If you live inland, and do not know how to decide, if a tide is low without a boat present, wikipedia is one of the places to learn it. I could say, if a tide is low without boats, and hopefully now you will be able to do it too. Learning things about oceans could me a matter of life and death sometimes. For example, what is the obvious sign of approaching tsunami? Of course it is a huge incoming wave, but when one sees this wave it is usually too late to run from it. What is not so obvious sign? It is a receding ocean, the ocean that goes back so much, that the bottom is exposed. When there was tsunami in Thailand hundreds of people saw that warning sign and did not recognized it. They got killed. Only one small girl, who instead of complaining she lives inland, and the sign is not obvious, did recognize the warning because she learned about this before. This girl was able to save not only her family and herself, but also a few hundreds people from the same hotel she was vacationing in.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is an aesthetically beautiful photograph, but it has no main focus (not referring to camera focus) on anything with educational value ("beautiful does not always mean valuable"). Sure it could be used for sun glitter, but it would be rather ineffective because only a very tiny bit of sun glitter is found near the right edge of the photo (unlike this photo, where sun glitter is clearly seen). Sorry. LeavXC (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info So in your opinion this image should not have been uploaded to Wikipedia at all? For comparison this image is not only FP, but also so called the most valued image in the scope Sunsets over sea. Anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not necessarily; I have no problem with sunset pictures being uploaded to Wikipedia, but as candidates for Featured Picture nomination, I will generally oppose them on the grounds stated in the FP nomination guidelines that "almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others". The FP that you compared is a great photograph, possibly deserving of its FP status, but I take a neutral approach on whether or not that it is the best in its category (I haven't looked through and compared the many sunset pictures on the Commons). I also took no part in that picture's nomination, and I have no solid reason to nominate it for delisting. However, here, Featured Pictures should be the cream-of-the-crop of the Commons, both in technical quality and educational value. While this is a great picture compositionally, I feel that it lacks the EV to be a FP. LeavXC (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice picture but really not outstanding enough for FP --AngMoKio (座谈) 09:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely colours and textures. I think the mood is better than the FP linked.--99of9 (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice landscape photo, even if generic. --Elekhh (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support She's done it again. Kooritza (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is very pleasing to look at, but I do not find it sufficiently valuable to become FP. --Slaunger (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. This is a special image of sunset, and not because of the sunset itself but because of the way it was taken. Sunset images could be divided into two categories: sunsets with the sun seen and sunsets with only the sky with colorful clouds seen. My image belongs to the first category. If you are to look at the sunset images with the sun seen, you will see that most of them have the sun in the middle of the image. My image has the sun in the right, and it makes this image to stand out, and to be more valuable among other sunset images. Also because of the special composition one could see how the brightness of the sky is changing the farther of the sun the clouds are.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Christmas Decoration Slunj Park 2009.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2010 at 13:14:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Christmas decrations in Slunj, Croatia, 2009.
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 picture is too unsharp due to motion blur -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2010 (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.

File:081214-N-4856N-071.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 08:19:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A United States Coast Guard Eurocopter HH-65 Dolphin helicopter
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Colby Neal - uploaded by Alaniaris - nominated by Benchill -- Benchill (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Benchill (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose crop is too tight --AngMoKio (座谈) 09:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Yeah the crop is very tight. Mulazimoglu (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I rather like the close-up view. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I like close ups with tight crops more than some other regular reviewers, but this is a tad too tight for me, especially at the bottom. Can that be fixed? Jonathunder (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cut. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tight crop. --Aktron (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've made a request at Graphic Lab to extrapolate the left and bottom a little. Benchill (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • More sky could easily be added, but the propellers would still have been clipped... --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
        • That can also be fixed though as was done with this FP: before and after. --Slaunger (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop at lower and left edges. I do not mind the propellers are cut. Great DOF and colors. Some noise but acceptable. Will support an edit, where more space is given at the two sides. --Slaunger (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Women of Puducherry.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 01:39:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Womenof Puducherry
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by bgag - uploaded by bgag - nominated by bgag -- Bgag (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bgag (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Needs treatment....Mulazimoglu (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The technical quality is not outstanding but composition is great. --Aktron (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please correct the ccw-tilt --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Bgag (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Aktron --Böhringer (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice colours, but composition not so good (too central, wasted space behind the women). The black handbag is a distracting element, and it would be better with the women a bit higher relative to the horizon. --Avenue (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Avenue. Also not so great technical quality. --Slaunger (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Figure in Manga style.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2010 at 22:30:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A figure drawn in manga style (gray tones, fill patterns, intentional simple, etc.)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Niabot (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no point in featuring non-notable poor quality cartoons. Sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In manga you are usualy limmited to 3 colors (black, light gray, white) and patterns. Thats exactly what this image should illustrate, as it is totally common and currently no other freely available image shows this limitation. --Niabot (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration." It may be more considerate to say, "The quality falls short my standard for a featured picture", for example. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't use either of those phrases, and I wasn't meaning to be rude. Tone doesn't carry very well over the internet. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 07:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A little explanation goes a long way. Just because we don´t understand something does not mean it is not valuable. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support since no better manga/image is featured.. if find this one good enough.. high quality etc. Ggia (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but would prefer a SVG version, if possible. G.A.S 09:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • An SVG version is available (svg), but it has 12 MB and Commons isn't able to display it. The small preview works (with errors) but otherwise it isn't shown at all. So i decided to nominate the PNG export while the SVG is available for the ones that want to use this image for other cases. Would not want to nominate and incorrectly renderered SVG again, thinking on the last image with missing eyes in thumbnails. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Seems like the mentioned errors are the reason I though there were no SVG. Thanks for clarifying. G.A.S 16:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I didn't know anything about "mangas", except a previous controversial nomination of a "hentaï" (?). But from this picture, I followed and followed the links, and discovered a very interesting part (to me) of the modern japanese civilization. That's why I think "Commons" is great. As a french "classical" photographer, especially loving "classical" subjects, and maybe shooting in his own foot, I'm happy to say that there is not only the Louvre Museum in the world of art !! At the end, concerning this picture, I think it is a very good "basic" illustration of this kind of art, and can be therefore featurable, in my humble opinion. --Jebulon (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Maybe this is a very characteristic example of the so-called manga art, I don't know. But I don't like it aesthetically and think that a much better use of the few available colors could have been made in the central figure, which is flat and boring. We do know, from the long western tradition (Europe and America) of BW cartoons and comics that much better solutions are possible. As for the more general scope of manga and anime, I think that the present FPs of the same creator are of much higher quality (here and here) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Econt (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- If this wil be featured all other cartoon images have to be featured. Mulazimoglu (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio (座谈) 18:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I do not know much about manga, but there is something about the eyes which appears different, slightly different as compared to other cartoons I have seen. In the nominated photo, there is a distance between the eye brows and the upper part of the eye. Is it not more typical that the eyebrow is an "integrated" part of the eye, see, e.g., File:Anime eye.svg? I guess the character looks a bit more naive or young this way. Is it intentional? Or maybe I am just mixing up the eyelid and the eyebrow? --Slaunger (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Drawn in lines for golden ratio
  • Depending on style there are three basic ways to draw the lower eyelashes. The simplest is to ignore them completely, but it fores you to draw the upper eyelashes in a wide circle type. Prominent examples for this style are Azumanga Daioh ([2]) or Koe de Oshigoto ([3]) or Oreimo ([4]), which both uses them to show more or less naivety. You will also find many works which just draw them if the the lower eyelashes and pupil collide, which is common for styles with very large eyes/pupils ([5], [6]). And right, you also have styles that draw them thick and every time. ([7], [8]). To make it short: The artist is absolutely free to decide if or not. --Niabot (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the informative and enlightening response. I did have the feeling I was walking on thin ice regarding this. I kinda agree with the concerns raised by other regarding the composition. That it is rather uninteresting, also compared to your other manga creations. Any comments on the composition relative to illustrating what B/W manga is about? Could the same points be illustrated with a more striking composition? --Slaunger (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I choose that composition mainly for one reason: To show the proportion between body (shoulders) vs head-size and the mouth vs nose vs eyes ratio, which can't be easily seen if you don't choose a more or less frontal view. Even the indication of the nose basically only works if looked at frontally. For the proportions i used the golden ratio (which perfectly fits to the face), as shown in the image beside. --Niabot (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral tending towards support. Thank you for taking your time to make these detailed explanations. There is much more to the composition than I had first noticed. I find it very interesting. I really do not understand how other reviewers can argue that such kinds of images are not really in scope for Commons. It is informative and educational, not only with illustrating the basic techniques and proportions, as well as how one renders to B/W. Moreover, such images are seldomly licensed in a way, which is compatible with Commons. I do understand the concerns about the composition, that it seems rather plain. I guess it is because everything in the image is so standardized. You sort of need to bend or break a rule to make an image really interesting. It is this aspect of the image which leads to my neutral vote. --Slaunger (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see Alvesgaspars remark --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sort of per Alvesgaspar - the composition is central and flat, and the face is minimalist. A portrait photograph with similar composition would struggle to get votes. --99of9 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good! But, the caracter says nothing with his face and his body, Why? The manga style allows a expressive drawing! The absence of colors is regrettable for a FP.--Citron (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the whole subject/style is out of scope for Commons, but merely comparing it to already Featured works such as this and this demonstrates that this doesn't meet the standard. Steven Walling 21:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. It's a lot of work to do this as svg. --Lošmi (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kjetil_r 16:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is really what Featured Picture voting is about? To summarize the above opposes: I don't understand it but I don't like it. Me, neither. No Japanese art should be on our server. Oh, and black and white pictures should be in color! Wow. Just wow. 75.41.110.200 18:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This isn't Japanese art. It's a cartoon drawn by some German. We actually have quite a bit of Japanese art featured already (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Steven Walling 01:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You are right, I'm from germany. But has that anything to do with drawing in a prototype Japanese style of manga? Can the river dance only be executed by Irish men? Does that mean Shibari must be performed by a person of Japanese decent? Pointillists must be from France? Surrealists must be from Spain? --Niabot (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • And what about that ?, Manga hosted by Louis XIV ? Thoughts about ? --Jebulon (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't really know what you are trying to tell me, since i have problems with the translation of the linked page (can't speak or read french). Can you explain it in more detail? --Niabot (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Niabot: I'm not suggesting it's less than great for us to have contributions from a German imitating a Japanese visual style. I'm just pointing out that it's completely hyperbolic to attack the oppose voters as if we were rejecting all Japanese art on Commons. Steven Walling 22:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support simple, representative, others not real Manga. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pro2 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per THFSW, Citron and Steven Walling. Yann (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The others that other people linked are good (and almost pornographic heehee) but this one is very well-done as well and very crisp, I don't particularly miss the color and I like the whole proportions thing. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Fishingfellowship.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2010 at 18:28:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
This is the best of my point of shoot camera. I ll take better ones for you when i get an DSLR :)) Anyway competing is good Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment About 500,000 pixels with a value of 255 in the red channel. That is more than 10% and may too many for a featured picture because of loss of color accuracy and detail. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- I second George on his evaluation of this image. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I like it so much! -- Yiyi (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some quality problems, but good atmosphere. Very pleasing to look at, but I do not think it has high enough value to become FP. --Slaunger (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

File:RhB BDt at La Punt-Chamues-ch.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2010 at 21:31:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Typical Rhaetian Railway station La Punt-Chamues-ch
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A typical Rhaetian Railway station in the Engadin, La Punt-Chamues-ch. The train is an hourly local service that stops on request, with the locomotive at the rear end and the control car leading.
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --FieldMarine (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent quality, nice and encyclopaedic composition. --Elekhh (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice.--Citron (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Die kleine rote! Excellent work. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 18:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aktron (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Excellent composition and quality, a 'classic'! Looks simple doesn't it? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Bumblebee on lavender.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 13:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A bumblebee on lavender, in the french Alpes.

*Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 134.214.109.163 13:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- A featured picture candidate without categories can't be meant serious! -- Ies (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2010 (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 image quality is not good enough (motion blur, general unsharpness) when compared with the present insect FP Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2010 (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.

File:Babyrousa babyrussa Crane.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 18:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Skull of Babirusa (Babyrousa babyrussa)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Didier Descouens - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Well done and beautiful! But what are those large and curved fangs for? They seem useless this way! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • In a way, they are useless. Only the males have them, to impress the females. They serve no practical purpose. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Not useless at all! Is there anything more useful for males than impressing females? ;o) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I realize only now that nommination. Thank you The High Fin Sperm Whale.
These are the most sexual ornaments idiots out there, because it is not uncommon for these canines pierce the skull and are the cause of death of the animal. They exist in that form only in males.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done! - LeavXC (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rama (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impresive animal, good photo --Mile (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC).
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral tending towards support. High quality and interesting subject. I think there is a small problem with areas being a tad overexposed, leading to loss of some details, see note. --Slaunger (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Well done ... as usual! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks like a picture made by Archaeodontosaurus !!--Jebulon (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fascinating educational subject, great lighting and composition. Steven Walling 02:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 06:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --FieldMarine (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please add where this is located to the picture description. Any additional details would be appreciated. Thanks. FieldMarine (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a studio shot. If you want to know were Archaeodontosaurus' studio is, then you'll have to ask him. Or did you mean were it comes from originally? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I would think this piece has some history & knowing that would make the image more interesting, at leaset to me personally. Where was this found & how old is it, etc. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with FieldMarine. --Slaunger (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I had not imagined that this skull might interest you much. It is a skull of a young adult purchased for studies of comparative anatomy with fossil forms. This is a private company specializing in the restoration of fossils in central France. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:General view of Sighnaghi, Georiga.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 14:01:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The general view of the town Sighnaghi, the island of Mediterranean in Caucasus. Sighnaghi's economy is dominated by production of wine and traditional carpets. The town and its environs are also known for their landscapes and historical monuments. Sighnaghi has recently undergone a fundamental reconstruction program and has become an important centre of Georgia's tourist industry.
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author.--George, 14:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- The composition is nice and correct, but not the image quality. The buildings are not sharp enough and the noise in the background is too obvious. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The buildings are too distracting to fully absorb the whole view. -- Scottthezombie (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Buildings look good, composition great but trees seems a bit "blended" together. --Aktron (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Livingstatue.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 09:20:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Living statue in Montmartre, Paris.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Kirua -- Kirua (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kirua (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- I don't like the crop and the busy background. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree, the crop is too tight. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The last vote is not counted.It was made after the nomination was closed for voting--Mbz1 (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:NewCastle-KeepTower360.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 19:03:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

360° panoramic shot of Newcastle upon Tyne taken from the tower of the Newcastle Keep.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Chrkl - uploaded by Chrkl - nominated by Patriot8790 --патриот8790Say whatever you want 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- --патриот8790Say whatever you want 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition could be better...the pole standing on top of the tower appears cut-off. Same with the head at the bottom. Sorry. LeavXC (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad quality. lacking sharpness, detail, chromatic aberration. i assume that the choice of composition was limited due to position of the vantage point. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request please provide camera data. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is the main problem: I cannot find an underlying idea or objective in the photo. It reminds me of a Bruckner symphony: Lenghty, with occasional highlights, but no climax or main point. Some like that, others do not. I tend to be of the last kind. (Sorry Bruckner fans). --Slaunger (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Agree on the Bruckner part. May I add Malher too?... Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment MaHler, Alvesgaspar, MaHler. Add Richard Strauss too.--Jebulon (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, Jebulon, MaHler. Also spracht Za...bulon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
        • "Also sprach, Alves, sprach Clin. --Slaunger (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Smile --Jebulon (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
          • (2-0) Smile Beware, a vingança serve-se fria! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
            • for others, in french: La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid. (a litteral turkish translation should be surely funny...) But didn't you say that review should be in english ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad stitching. The clouds are great but a panorama like this I'd never nominate to FP :-/ sry --Aktron (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Schooner Mayflower-07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 21:35:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Nuttyrave - uploaded by Nuttyrave - nominated by Nuttyrave -- Nuttyrave (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- spectacular late 19th century racing yacht, glass a bit damaged on the lower right hand side, so not perfect. Nuttyrave (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the historical value outdoes the poor quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice and spectacular subject, indeed. There is a mark on the picture, is it a copyright one ? Anyway, the quality is not good enough for a FP, this picture must (and can) be restored before to be nominated IMO. I think it could be improved by specialists here.--Jebulon (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose restoration needed. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe it can be improved more, but I'm happy as is. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- A marvelous boat and composition. But I'm with Jebulon, the image can and should be restored. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg QuestionGlad the picture I have nominated does indeed hold potential! Where and how can this picture be tagged for restoration? Who does this on wikimedia? Nuttyrave (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Commons:Graphics village pump might be a good starting point. We used to have a couple of very skillful and highly active restorationists/restorers: Durova and Adam Cuerden and a few others I think, but they are currently inactive. You may want to try and give it a go yourself, as we need the competences. --Slaunger (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jebulon. --Slaunger (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Cape Pillar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2010 at 06:03:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cape Pillar, Tasman National Park, Tasmania
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Elekhh (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Citron (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wow, great landscape. But it seems to me it needs a tiny rotation CCW. -- Onno Zweers (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image, pin-sharp too! --Murdockcrc (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until the distortion/tilt is corrected --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm really not sure about this, as the horizon is perfectly horizontal. It appears to me that the slight natural drop of the land on the right side might generate a visual impression which might be perceived as tilt. --Elekhh (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral large and crisp but what is cape? front or back? If front is cut if back is too far. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't take the filename as an exclusive description of the image. What matters is the image content: a depiction of a section of the eastern coast of Tasmania, within Tasman National Park. The geocode and the description provide you a clear explanation of the illustrated landscape (between Cape Hauy and Cape Pillar). The image shows not only the typical relief (including the bay between the two capes) but also the typical vegetation. It does not lack encyclopaedic value IMO. Please reconsider your comment. --Elekhh (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kooritza (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support I love your landscapes, and everything else you do! hoverFly | chat? 17:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support LeavXC (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 09:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not fancy the low visibilty of the background features, and I do not fancy the outdated/backdoor non-commercial GFDL 1.2 only license, which makes it a no-go for reuse on some Wikimedia project, like the German Wikipedia. --Slaunger (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Competent but not striking. I don't think it shows off the coast that well; my eye is drawn most to the rocks and dead branches in the foreground. Might be better if the cliff on the right was brighter. --Avenue (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Slaunger. --99of9 (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Nothing special about this landscape. FieldMarine (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The clarity is excellent. TFCforever (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Große Iserwiese in the fog.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 23:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hala Izerska (Großen Iserwiese, Poland) in the fog - destroyed bridge
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --V-wolf (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Llorenzi (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not convinced by the mood, and the crop of the stream right is unfortunate to me.--Jebulon (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- With regret because I do like the mood. But the composition is too symmetrical for my taste and the crop is indeed unfortunate. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support cut right. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aktron (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technicals aren't bad (some flaws are even nicely masked by the fog and natural light) and I just love it, though I somewhat agree about the cutoff river, not that I'm sure it matters if it isn't the subject. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 15:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Per opposing people. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Like the soft mood, but the harsh crop compromises it. --Elekhh (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jebulon. Could benefit from geocoding. --Slaunger (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Guerin general Jean-Baptiste Kleber.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 22:42:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

French General Jean-Baptiste Kleber, painting in National Museum, Stockholm
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Bjoertvedt - uploaded by Bjoertvedt - nominated by Bjoertvedt -- Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, it is unsharp, blurry, noisy in background, and the crop of the hand is really unfortunate.--Jebulon (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, just another political figure. -- Scottthezombie (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very bad digital reproduction, you can't see any detail of the canvass, plus this looks like it really needs color restoration. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think some points need clarification here. First of all the photo including the lower left corner with the hand is not cropped, it ends there! The photo is of a painting and it is a photo of the whole painting- I.e., there was nothing to crop and one must blame the painter for the cropping. Regarding blurriness this is also a characteristic of the painting and the paint as such, even though it is hard to judge to which degree that is the case without having the original painting at hand. Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think it is anything special. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Mullus surmuletus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 18:22:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mullus surmuletus
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by and uploaded by Hans Hillewaert - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- This fish is delicious (and very expensive). But the lighting is not good enough, with extensive overexposed areas. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Too bad about the blown areas. I going to withdraw. However, before I do, can you please tell me what is unsatisfactory about the lighting? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Please don't withdraw, that is just my opinion, I'm not sure what went wrong with the lighting, those with parts look like specular reflections from the light source. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral High technical level and good colors. Light acceptable IMO. Valuable, but rather conventional composition. --Slaunger (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Overexposed at some places. Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Naked woman-Louvre-E27429.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2010 at 16:16:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ivory statuette of a naked woman, Third Intermediate Period of Egypt
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ivory statuette of a naked woman, Third Intermediate Period of Egypt. On display at the Louvre. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Felix König 14:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support All Louvre should be here. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support more info in the description would be helpful. --FieldMarine (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose same as above --Niabot (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Paris 16 (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TFCforever (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Telli bandiagara.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2010 at 10:24:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tellem village in the Bandiagara Escarpment, Mali.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Kirua - uploaded by Kirua - nominated by Kirua -- Kirua (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kirua (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral nice and dark. don't know now. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gnangarra 02:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Valuable but not quality. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Mulazimoglu--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Highly interesting subject. Catches my interest right away. Quality acceptable IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Interesting subject, nice composition, but significant chromatic aberration along many edges. --99of9 (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Mulazimoglu and Archaeodontosaurus: it is certainly valuable, but I don't see the quality aspect. TFCforever (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Terre cuite pleureuse Louvre E27247 .jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2010 at 11:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support After more than 3500 years, this beautyful mourning young lady is still inconsolable... Rare example of so expressive painted terracotta, Egyptian 18th dynasty -- Jebulon (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--shizhao (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blurry, DOF imo a bit shallow. Don't you use a tripod? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
through a glass... und tripod sind in Museen streng verboten !!! --Jebulon (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
good for the museum, bad for the photo :-/ --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe...I don't know how/why it is "good" for the museums, especialy for the Louvre. But yes, it is very bad for photographers. By the way, it is not because that I am the photographer of this one, but I really love this mourning (and not-so-blurred, IMO)young women (maybe Isis mourning Osiris, see description page) from the ages of the Amenhoteps, Hatschepsut, Akhenaton and Tut-Ankh-Amon pharoes...She looks alive, and it is therefore very rare, instead of hieratic other egyptian figures. For me, it is a mitigating reason for a non absolutely perfect technical quality --Jebulon (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blurry --Böhringer (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Striking, and sharp where it counts. --Avenue (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Paris 16 (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Did I say that I'm no fan of crop-outs? In this case the missing detail kills it for me. Also all this crop-outs look very artificial to me. Like some users try to hide that otherwise bad composition. At the end it's nothing i would like to have in a frame at the wall. --Niabot (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't understand what you mean by the missing detail kills it for me. I don't try to hide anything, except an ugly background behind a glass in a museum. That's why I let sometimes the original picture in the description page, then one can make the comparison. It is the best way I've found, in my opinion, to share with others some nice and rare objects I may discover and photography, useful in an encyclopedic work like "Commons". Some reviewers may basically dislike some kind of pictures, like crop outs, deformed panoramas (in my case), manga drawings, or uninteresting flat landscapes. But systematically oppose crop outs (hidden under all-purpose technical comments) looks a bit fundamentalist to me. There is nothing I can do against that. Only saying : keep your mind open ! I wouldn't have a manga style picture (for example) in a frame at the wall, but I think it is interesting to know things about that. And I'll continue to upload (and submit, maybe) new cropped-out pictures.--Jebulon (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • It's nothing personal. But if this cutout makes the object floating and it is just not visually appealing to me. Compared to others of your pictures it has its flaws and can't convince me. --Niabot (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Despite the minor flaws. This is probably close to the best we can get under the circumstances. I like the composition and the expression, which is probably (?) an exception in the ancient Egyptian art. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful and edifying composition and lighting on a valuable subject. Steven Walling 02:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am convinced after reading the sales speech by the nominator. Very nice light. Good quality given the circumstances. I am also intrigued by the expression of this woman and how old it is. It invites me in as a layman not knowing much about ancient Egyptian artwork. --Slaunger (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm afraid this is not to be sold... Thanks, Slaunger, for this sensitive review. 18th Dynasty (ca 1550-1300 BCE) is a famous, maybe the famous one dynasty, with very famous kings: the series of the Ahmenotep's (with Akhenaten) and Tutmosis', the "king" Hatshepsut, Nefertete, Tutankhamon... Some says it was the most brilliant era of ancient Egypt. The following was the dynasty of the Ramses'. And I think really that this sad lady is very lovely.--Jebulon (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful photograph of a beautiful piece of art. TFCforever (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

Image:Silver fir branch.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 18:34:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Branch of a silver fir
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 of poor technical quality: tight framing, confusing background, most of the subject is unsharp. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2010 (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 ich denke mal, dass auch diese Kandidatur nicht erfolgreich enden wird. Das Motiv ist an sich ganz nett, aber die Qualität, dabei vor allem die Schärfentiefe, überzeugt nicht, was vermutlich die Automatik der Kamera zustande brachte. Am Besten (wenn es möglich ist) noch mal fotografieren und folgende Tipps beachten: 1. Höhere Brennweite nutzen (Makrostandards sind etwa so bei 85-140mm bei einem solchen Motiv, hängt natürlich von Fotograf und Gegebenheiten ab). Ich weiß nicht wie viel Spielraum du bei der Brennweite und dem Zoom hast, aber wie gesagt, möglichst hoch sollte die Brennweite sein. 2. Blende manuell einstellen. Bei f/2.8 hast du nur einen minimalen Bereich scharf. Probiere einfach mal mit Blenden zwischen f7.1 bis f14 herum (auch hier: Zahlen können variieren). 3. Gute Beleuchtung des Motivs abwarten. Wenn ich mir den Himmel deines Bildes anschaue sehe ich, dass er leicht überbelichtet ist. Außerdem gibt es viele schattige Bereiche auf dem Bild. Ich denke, dass man da man noch einen besseren Standpunkt zu einer besseren Zeit erwischen kann, um auch eben das Licht und die Farben exzellent hinzubekommen. Als letztes 4. mein persönlicher Ratschlag: bei Makroaufnahmen Stativ benutzten, da vor allem bei ISO 100-200 (die immer gewählt werden sollten) und einer wenig geöffneten Blende (also hoher Blendenwert) die Belichtungszeit häufig länger wird und man Verwacklungen ja vermeiden will. Soweit die Hinweise von mir. Ich denke, dass (wie gesagt) diese Version wohl nicht exzellent wird aber du es bestimmt noch schaffst, ein solches ausgezeichnetes Bild hinzugekommen. Ich selbst musste auch lange darauf hinarbeiten, aber irgendwann hatte es auch bei mir geklappt :-) Grüße --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dem kann man fast nichts mehr hinzufügen, außer vielleicht, dass es mit einer Allround Kamera wie der DMC-FZ100 schwierig sein wird exzellente Makroaufnahmen zu machen. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see anything special about it. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Aurelia aurita at Ocean Beach in San Francisco.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2010 at 00:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aurelia aurita and kitesurfers at Ocean Beach in San Francisco
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info On November 15, 2010 thousands of w:Moon jellyfishes covered Ocean Beach. They mostly were gone in 2 days, but some new ones were washed ashore.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice contrast. TFCforever (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The image was also meant to catch the surfer and the far-distant kite as well, so well composed in my opinion. ZooFari 20:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 15:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Quality very low. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Would you mind stating the aspects that make the image very low quality? ZooFari 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Look at the sky. Look at the hills far away. The picture totaly is also not clear. Like foggy or very humidity. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
That's better than "quality very low". I disagree though, using "very" is a bit sarcastic in my interpretation. It's not the camera's fault and it makes sense that the beach is hazy. The image itself is good quality. ZooFari 02:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any indication of sarcasm, and that inference seems especially uncalled for when dealing with a non-fluent English speaker. --Avenue (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I did not know the user was not fluent in English, so I apologize, and I also meant to say it was just a little exaggerating. My opinion on the subject still stands, though I didn't meant to express it in a negative way. ZooFari 23:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kooritza (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If the main subject are the jellyfish, this is a really poor composition. If you didn't point it out in the description, I would've missed their presence entirely. Not very edifying. Steven Walling 02:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I honesty can't picture a better composition. The file description describes both the jellyfish and kite surfers. If the photographer were to focus the camera solely on the jellyfish, the composition would be more boring IMO. ZooFari 02:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Confusing composition IMO. The nomination tries to show both kite surfers and dead jellyfish in the same photo, albeit they have little to do with each other. Yes I do think there are much better ways to illustrate the dead jellyfish if that was the point. One just have to have a look at the first photo in the news article mila linked to in her nomination, where a boys kneels to inspect a jellyfish, the camera is kept close to the beach and you see there are just thousands of them. That provides a much clearer message to the viewer in my opinion. --Slaunger (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
There were no thousands of them, when I took my image, and under the circumstances I did the best I could. If I kept my camera close to the beach, only one jellyfish would have been seen, and I disagree about better composition in news article. One might see thousands of jellyfishes only, if one read the article first. Otherwise it is rather unclear what is going on with the image. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree it is a good photo given the circumstances. I just think the circumstances were not quite FP circumstances. Being the right place at the right time is not always easy. --Slaunger (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. I don't understand this picture. The jellyfishes are not well shown in my opinion, the kite surfer is... walking, and the landscape is not really interesting to me. Agree with Slaunger.--Jebulon (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Bonaparte écolier IMG 6712.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2010 at 08:29:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Napoléon Bonaparte, schoolboy in Brienne, aged 15.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Napoléon Bonaparte, schoolboy in Brienne, aged 15. Plaster statue, double of a plaster made as a template for a bronze statue erected in front of Brienne townhall. By Louis Rochet.

Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- Llez (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --FieldMarine (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support magestic. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kirua (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I usually don't like cutouts and this is another case. It's missing details at the borders and the composition, overall expression is far away from other featured pictures. --Niabot (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Alttan yapılan crop fazla olmuş. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry Mulazimoglu, Google translation is ineffective (Alltan ?)--Jebulon (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- As I said above, this kind of comment is useless, both to the creator and to the other reviewers. Please remember that our assessments are supposed to identify and elaborate on the strong and weak components of the pictures, for the benefict of us all. Mulazimoglu has already shown to be able to use the English language with sufficient skill. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Was crop a Turkish word :) ? --Elekhh (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The crop downside of the picture is much than must be...Did not like the crop...Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Correct and nice qualitu picture but not special enough to deserve the FP status. A higher shooting position would result better, maybe. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TFCforever (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Porto Covo November 2010-2b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2010 at 20:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The main square of the village of Porto Covo, Portugal (detail). Second (and last) try with a less radical crop at top and right (the original nomination is here). Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the crop at the edges, especially the right one. It makes one want to see more. Can you back up in this shot or is there a wall behind you? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- This is a relatively large square place and some form of crop is inevitable. See here a much broader view. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I would support the second version, if the palm trees were no cut off. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a 360° versión with peoples --The Photographer (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'd support that too. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose I agree with The High Fin Sperm Whale, the second image (linked to by Alvesgaspar) would be a better choice. This is a beautiful place, but I think the photo needs to be a little better to be featured.-- TFCforever (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Weert Martinuskerk gewelf.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2010 at 21:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vault of the Sint-Martinuskerk in Weert the Netherlands
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jan van den Eijnden - uploaded by Jan van den Eijnden - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe it even looks better when it's turned around 180 degrees. I love the way this vaults blow you away and all the details -- Basvb (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I concur with nominator, except for turning it 180 degrees. But was this taken in the night? Why the 25 second exposure at f/5.6? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't knwo why it had a 25 second exposure, maybe just because the church was a bit dark? Based on the other photo's taken in and around the church I think the picture was taken during the day. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous ! --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful --Llez (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunningly beautiful. TFCforever (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine work --Schnobby (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful! - Quistnix (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I am missing seeing this image as FP because of composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question -- What do you mean with "composition"? This is a perfect symmetric composition of a perfect symmetric construction. What is the alternative?-- --Frode Inge Helland (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The hanging lights aren't perfectly on the picture, sadly. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- No wow factor. Colors weak. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question --Weak colors? Have you ever been in a real gothic cathedral?-- --Frode Inge Helland (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kooritza (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lots of wow, delicate colours and amazing composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kooritza (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC) I understand your enthusiasm, but it appears that you voted two times. I cancel your last vote (don't worry, It happens to me too...)--Jebulon (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Egenhausen 20080323 SK 0002.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2010 at 14:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Snowy landscape around Egenhausen near Obernzenn, Bavaria, Germany.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Simonizer - uploaded by Simonizer - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 14:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 14:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I support if the dust is removed. I think there's a ccw tilt, too --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lovely landscape, but the sky is a little bit noisy and with some parts blown out. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blown at top. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Come on, it is always hard to make a good exposition for a landscape covered by snow. Yes, it would be much nicer to have the scene with blue sky and sunshine but this one is also good. --Aktron (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 15:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Not enough clear. Especially the sky and the left up sides. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Per Carschten, regarding the enoooormous dustspot. Not sure for the tilt, I think no tilt.--Jebulon (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am not convinced regarding the composition and I find the lightning dull. --Slaunger (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really want to support it, but the dust spot is holding me back. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose i hardly see any blown out parts (some areas on the right as photoshop reveals - but those are neglectable). sharpness and focus are good. the dustspot of doom should be removed. try playing around with levels and masks - increasing contrasts (0|0,6|255) and masking out the tree adds the special something to your image. composition could be improved by using rule of thirds (does not work via crop here and would require a reshot). regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File:14-22-35-f-giro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2010 at 10:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Inside the fort de Giromagny.


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:BadwaterBasin.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2010 at 02:16:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Badwater Basin, California, USA.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Scottthezombie - uploaded by Scottthezombie - nominated by Scottthezombie -- Scottthezombie (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Scottthezombie (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very dark Gnangarra 02:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose if you have the raw file, you can increase the exposure of the foreground. This is the only reason why I'm not giving you my vote. I think you should be able to fix it. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too dark and tilted (?) bamse (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too dark, looks tilted, snapshot composition --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • 282 feet = 855m ? Deeper below sea level then the en:Dead Sea ? --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • There is a dot there: 282 ft =85.5m. --Elekhh (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed, bad white balance. --Aktron (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not that impressive. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Alt[edit]

BadwaterBasin-2.JPG

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info retouched version by Carschten --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Better, but the composition is unimpressive, especially the partial person at left. Noisy in the distance. --Avenue (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - please geocode, if possible. Jonathunder (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Gear-kegelzahnrad.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2010 at 21:52:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Thyes - nominated by me -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --FieldMarine (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kooritza (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No WoW factor, unimpressive.
  • Changed to Symbol support vote.svg Support per Niabot. TucsonDavid (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That kind of illustrations which is needed for articles. Good execution und valuable. --Niabot (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Niabot. --188.115.34.20 14:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC) signature correction --Cayambe (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1. Loose end of an axle is carelessly finished - the last "dark ring" on it gives an impression of not being continuosly attached to the rest. 2. Shading of "black rings" doesn't go along with the shading patern of axle itself, making them appear flatter. Masur (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC) ps. [9], what explains maybe the fact that the image is not rendered properly by FF (in my case) in full size as SVG and the only software able to open it, is AI for me. Masur (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The numerous (372) validation errors of the svg file should be sorted out as pointed out by Masur. --Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Changed to neutral per Niabots explanation below. --Slaunger (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The execution is very good. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not overly impressed by the lighting colours, and the reports of validation errors disturb me. --99of9 (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Changing to neutral per niabot's explanation (thanks). --99of9 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The validation errors are typical. Also many of my images (if not stripped and badly reusable with inkscape [layers lost, some effect controlls missing, etc.]) produce this errors, which aren't errors. It's just that the validator only takes plain SVG into account. Additional informations, like tags from inkscape should be ignored, since they are defined as an extension of the doctype, which is correct to do so. But the validator does not resolve them and marks them as errors, which is a problem of the validator and not of the SVG-file itself. --Niabot (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media/Computer-generated

File:Phyllidiopsis papilligera (Black-spotted nudibranch).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 22:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Phyllidiopsis papilligera (Black-spotted nudibranch)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pretty dress! -- Citron (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- the "cave" at top is really too dark, but the picture is so clear and well composed otherwise that I give it a try. Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Missing details in the dark part.--Jebulon (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What happened to the other version? - LeavXC (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Removed, because it's considered as a new nomination. --Citron (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Citron (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Bullfight in leon 3.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2010 at 23:55:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know it was meant to give a feeling of action, but it didn't turn out so well. The faces of both the bull and the fighter should be sharp, or at least recognizable, and the background is blurry as well. I think the speed should be quite a bit slower. Maybe blur it just enough so that you can see they're moving, perhaps 1/60 of a second. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, I completely disagree with your opinion. Get your shutter speed argument straight. A slower shutter speed would have resulted in even more blurr. As far as your comment that the faces should be sharp is a matter of opinion, not fact ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oops, I meant a faster speed. Maybe blurring the faces can give it some artistic interest, but not EV, and the background should sharp. However, guessing by the fact that you used f/2.8, I can see that the light was bad. Are these bullfights held late in the evening? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, disagree about EV and that the background should be sharp. If you state it as your opinion, I am ok with it, but not not as a statement of truth. And yes, it was a late afternoon bullfight, running into early evening. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree, extreme motion blur. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There are some images that are better off blurred, and this is one of them. An eye of a bull is more or less sharp, and everything else is about motion.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the idea, but not the fact that the background is blurred as well as the subjects. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree about the extreme motion blur. -- VS (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Motion blur. Artistic, but little interest to me--Miguel Bugallo 00:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:15-02-21-f-giro.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2010 at 10:23:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Inside the double caponnier inside the fort de Giromagny.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks almost perfect to me.--Jebulon (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good --George Chernilevsky talk 15:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Odaktaki alet oldukça uzakta ve ayrıntılar seçilmiyor. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- In English: "Details tool in focus is quite far away and not selected"; in French: "Détails outil de mise au point est assez loin et pas sélectionné"; in German: "Details Werkzeug im Fokus ist ziemlich weit weg und nicht ausgewählt". Does this help? I'm afraid not :( -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No, but is fun :) Other online translator gave :"The tool at the focus is rather distant, details are not becoming chosen." (closer?). The beauty is when you re-translate it into Turkish the result is different from the original. Do it a couple of times and you end up with "The distant to the your place right is not becoming selected her tool at the focus becomes her all which assigns to" --Elekhh (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TFCforever (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Miguel Bugallo 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Filmmaking of 'Black Thursday' on crossway of ulica 10 Lutego and ulica Świętojańska in Gdynia - 37.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2010 at 21:10:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This image evokes strong emotions in everyone who sees the first time. Correctly summarizes the Polish history. Nice colors.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Starscream - uploaded by Starscream - nominated by Starscream -- Starscream (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Starscream (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop at the top is too tight for me --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed, the crop is too tight. Look that the three men holding the flag, all their heads are somewhat cut off. --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree about the close crop. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:I-40 near NM.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 06:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interstate 40 in Arizona
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Nicholas on flickr - uploaded by Holderca1 - nominated by Admrboltz -- Admrboltz (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Admrboltz (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of poor image quality: artifacts and over-saturation -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see any artifacts in the photo, and I disagree that it is over saturated. Imzadi 1979  18:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- I'm afraid that is not a matter of opinion but of fact. Please check the yellows and greens (oversaturation) and the road in the foreground (jpeg artifacts) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • And I disagree. What you're calling artifacts I'm calling the natural blurriness because that portion of the road is in front of the focal area and so isn't covered in the depth of focus in the photo. As for oversaturation, that's how reflectorized MUTCD Green looks in the sunshine, so the green isn't "oversaturated". The DOTs in the US are switching from FHWA Highway Gothic to Clearview as the typeface family used on highway signs. The reasoning is that Clearview has been designed to account for the halation caused by the fully reflectorized sheeting required by the MUTCD on highway road signs. (Unless, of course. the sign is internally or externally lit. Highway signs must now appear the same at night under headlights as they do during the day so even the background green color has to be reflectorized.) That also means that when direct lighting, and in this case bright sunshine, hits a highway sign, it will be that bright, by design. The yellows look like the naturally dry grasses that they are. At most, that issue could be fixed with a simple image adjustment if deemed necessary. If you're discussing the yellow of the highway's centerline, that is also reflective paint. It's supposed to look like that. Sorry, but on two, if not all three, of your points, there are technical explanations. Imzadi 1979  20:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is oversaturated, in all hues, maybe even more in the sky than in the yellow line and the green on the sign. It is overprocessed and looks oily and smeared. Not a FP to me. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio (座谈) 20:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kooritza (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose oversaturated, sky blured to suppress artifacts due to oversaturation, but overlaps at the edges of the mountain, which is clearly visible. --Niabot (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The colors are fantastic. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Colors are nice but unnatural. Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • No they aren't... Admrboltz (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The objects farther back in the image, such as the guide sign, look a little blurry. The quality is not the best for a potential image that could be taken at this location. Dough4872 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Imzadi ComputerGuy (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Lightning over Whitman Air Force base and A-10 Thunderbolts - 091020-F-2616H-901.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 07:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by U.S. Air Force photographer Senior Airman Kenny Holston - uploaded by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover - nominated by TucsonDavid -- TucsonDavid (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TucsonDavid (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)*
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tigth crop, noise, strange settings.--Mile (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose This one is a really though call. I love the scene, but the crop is bad, and the quality is poor. I was about to vote support, when I noticed the lights in the background. The camera must have been bumped during exposure. Really too bad. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop too tight, unfortunately. Steven Walling 02:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose framing is problematic as indicated above. --Elekhh (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kooritza (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose I would love to support, but the crop is too tight. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of the crop. If the aircrafts had more space around them I'd probably support. --Ximonic (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Official opening of the sailing season and yacht parade on Motława during III World Gdańsk Reunion - 41.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 01:58:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two flags of Gdańsk on the background, which highlights their beauty.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Spider November 2010-6a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2010 at 16:26:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version of this nomination. Though the crop is a bit too tight on top, I belive the poor thing still have pelnty of air to breathe... Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Not better than the old version. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting still very harsh. Steven Walling 04:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I suppose the crop is better, but the lighting is still much too harsh, and the background is quite distracting and reflective, probably from the flash used. IMO, straight-on or built-in flash typically casts very harsh, flat lighting, unless it is used very well as fill flash, which isn't the case here. Sorry. LeavXC (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kooritza (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Steven Walling; sorry. --Citron (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I voted for the older version and will do for this one as well. This image has great value as an illustration. This should be weighted in tandem with mere photographic technicalities. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TFCforever (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice and sharp, valuable, and now the composition is sufficient. --99of9 (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Us 99of9 --Miguel Bugallo 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Локомотив 02:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The other FP of the same species has a much better quality, angle of view and composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Image:NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 05:48:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Researchers working in the harsh environment of Mono Lake, Calif. have discovered microorganisms able to thrive and reproduce using arsenic, changing the fundamental knowledge about what comprises all known life on Earth.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info NASA-funded astrobiology research has changed the fundamental knowledge about what comprises all known life on Earth. Researchers conducting tests in the harsh environment of Mono Lake in California have discovered the first known microorganism on Earth able to thrive and reproduce using the toxic chemical arsenic. The microorganism substitutes arsenic for phosphorus in its cell components. This finding of an alternative biochemistry makeup will alter biology textbooks and expand the scope of the search for life beyond Earth. Created by NASA - uploaded by LuisArmandoRasteletti - nominated by LuisArmandoRasteletti -- LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- What does the picture depict, by the way?... Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice background image with crappy looking insert... I say "nope". And it's not even valuable one - both images separately would tell their story. Masur (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The placement of the inserted image is rather unfortunate. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Solar Glory with helicopter shadow around Mauna Loa.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 02:54:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Solar glory
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image of course was taken from the very same helicopter the shadow of which is seen inside w:solar glory at the image.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong Support Excellent image, with high EV. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kooritza (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- VS (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strange! --Citron (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose again. I don't see the featured thing in this picture. There's a lot of fog and some landscape, and just a very small shadow (just because of the file decription I noticed that that's a helicopter) with the effect trappings. I don't understand why you don't use a better framing to show the effect. The EV is thus minor and the composition suspect. Sorry --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, Dr. Tony Phillips, who runs Spaceweather.com (NASA site) has a slightly different opinion. He believes that "Each sighting is a puzzle--all the more reason to seek them out.". I doubt you ever saw a solar glory from the air, or even an image of one. This image is good because it shows not only glory and the fog (without fog or clouds there could not be glory), but also "some landscape" that btw is Mauna Loa the is the largest volcano on Earth in terms of volume. The image was taken from a very shaky helicopter. Effect lasted only less than a minute because there was not so much fog. To take the image I needed to turn slightly backward. It was one hard to to take image. One Russian poet said: "It is not scary to loose ability to surprise, it is much scarier to loose ability to get surprised. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agree with the russian poet. I've never seen such an image, I think it is very strange and interesting, and has a very high educational value. The photographer was very lucky to be there with her camera, and deserves congratulations for having the idea of taking this picture, and the possibility and potential to do it. But as said another anonymous poet, concerning soccer in Europe : "only good goalkeepers are lucky..."--Jebulon (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- I agree with Carschten. This is most certainly a valuable image but not a featured picture. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar and Carschten. EV alone doesn't set a picture apart as Featured for me. LeavXC (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No, but EV plus extremely high quality does! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • If that is all a picture needs to be featured, then Featured pictures must not be the best pictures on the Commons after all, IMO. If this picture had better composition, then I'd support it. Per Carschten, better framing could be used to show the effect (the "solar glory" only takes up about 5% of the frame). The remaining parts of the picture that are not part of the sun glory, appears to be some clouds and a very obscure representation of Mauna Loa. Sorry. LeavXC (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
        There is also different colors lava flow on the image. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Its interesting, valuable, but quality not for FP.--Mile (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment composition doesn't work for me either, but is an interesting image. Given that it has already been cropped (and thus has non-standard proportions) I wonder if a better crop (maybe portrait?) could be found which would improve it. --Elekhh (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very rare --George Chernilevsky talk 06:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • how very ? --Elekhh (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      Well from 32 images in the category at least 12 were taken by me. The effect is relatively rare, and one should know where and how to look for it. That shot from the helicopter, would not have been taken, if I specifically did not look for the effect. I took lots of flights during my travels around the world. I saw a good glory with a good shadow only 2 times. It is how rare it is. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Karsten+Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio (座谈) 20:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Carschten and Alvesgaspar, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support EV --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- I dont see anything. What is featured here? Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose After further thought, the composition is not FP for me. --Elekhh (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Karsten and Alvesgaspar--Miguel Bugallo 20:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I could have asked (as I was asked, when I opposed some images) what is wrong with the image, why it cannot be FP, what is wrong with the composition, but I will not. I am not very interested in learning this out, and I guess I got enough information for the time being Smile And I'd like to thank the ones, who supported the image, recognizing its great EV, rarity and lots of mitigating circumstances that prevented me from taken a better shot. It is a rare and good image because most images of a glory taken from the air will depict only clouds and the glory. This image leaves no doubt it was taken from an air. Of course w:Mauna Loa and different colors of lava flow add value to the image. I am sure you, who supported the images, will see your own glory one day because you bothered to learn more about phenomena, and you did not loose ability to get surprised.Smile --Mbz1 (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:St Moritz Muottas.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 10:15:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of St. Moritz and the lake, as seen from Muottas da Schlarigna, Grisons. Switzerland.

Symbol support vote.svg Support --FieldMarine (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive landscape, excellent lighting, very nice and natural colours. --Cayambe (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Tiptoety talk 19:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose downsampled. would support a full res version. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- this is very good! Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cool! --Aktron (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kooritza (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good picture, but barely 2 MP which in in my opinion to small for this landscape. --Niabot (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning! -- TFCforever (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak Support It's a beautiful shot but I would definitely prefer even a little bit larger version. There would be a lot of interesting details around to look closer at. --Ximonic (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm sure you've that image with a higher resolution and better details. I think that e.g. 3000x2000 pixels would be enough... More than that is always nice ;-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Sunrise thailand ko samui.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 13:53:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunrise in Ko Samui, Thailand.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by KishuArashi - uploaded by Pro2 - nominated by Pro2 -- Pro2 (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Just another try. -- Pro2 (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ccw tilt --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose little ev, no rules of third (deficient composition). regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The rules of third is not a hard and vast rule, but should always be applied with flexibility and in a judicious way. The composition is quite good here! -- MJJR (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - clear and well composed. Bjoertvedt (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Little EV per Peter Weis. It is yet another sunset (sunrise) picture ("almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others"). LeavXC (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    • However this is still a sunrise picture -- Pro2 (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
      • You are right. How embarrassing!...I didn't read the title. Sorry. However, I still feel that it lacks EV. Great picture though! LeavXC (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kooritza (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Peter Weis and LeavXC. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The colours and crepuscular rays are nice. The rays give some EV, but the composition is weak IMO. --Avenue (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All the sunsets pictures are nice. All the sunrise pictures too. This one too. But No special value to me. Could maybe win a prize in a photo contest (not sure, due to the black edge left below), but "Commons", even in FP, is not a contest... (IMO)--Jebulon (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Snaevar (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Gottfried böhm, pilgrimage church, neviges 1963-1972 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2010 at 00:58:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

pilgrimage church, maria königin des friedens, neviges, germany 1963-1972. architect: gottfried böhm, b.1920
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by seier+seier - uploaded by Elya - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Elekhh (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not like the composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe you could explain what you do not like about the composition?--Elekhh (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not like that the foreground starts with the cut-off structure itself, and that only part of the structure is shown. To me that composition seems quite unfinished. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too close - this seems like an interesting structure & the subject would be better covered with a picture taken a little farther out. FieldMarine (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Mbz1 and FieldMarine. LeavXC (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This composition does not convince me. --High Contrast (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Elekhh (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Bufo bufo couple during migration(2005).jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2010 at 04:30:59
Overexposed background with rocks

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I found this while looking through the amphibian featured pictures category. It was nominated in 2005, but I feel that it no longer fits its FP status, as the rocks are severely blown (overexposed). Its nomination page can be found here. -- LeavXC (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- LeavXC (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep--Mbz1 (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist I agree. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Per nom. Steven Walling 01:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom. --Cayambe (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Delist... with sadness --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep--Jebulon (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist I agree about the overexposure. -- TFCforever (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 13:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Even though the background is indeed overexposed, the fact is that this image depicts its main subject in a great way. --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Ugly creatures, but the image is good, the light background helps focus on the subjects, and it works well in wikipedia. It probably wouldn't be promoted today, but it was clear consensus back than. Elekhh (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not ugly, rather very interesting amphibian with nice golden eyes. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per others. Also background too dry, rather not natural for this animals --George Chernilevsky talk 08:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Mount Eden.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2010 at 03:19:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Etherbug - uploaded by Etherbug - nominated by Scottthezombie -- Scottthezombie (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Scottthezombie (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Excessive noise. LeavXC (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise in shadows, unsharp in distance. Not an easy shot to take in winter, with shadows from the low northern sun. --Avenue (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really like the green/foreground and grey/background contrast. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with user Avenue. The town in the backround is unsharp and there is noise in the foreground.--Snaevar (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Amsterdam photochrom2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2010 at 11:50:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dam square, Amsterdam
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Photoglob AG - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Elekhh (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 01:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mooie historische afbeelding. (Nice historical picture). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose would prefer the original colors which look better in my opinion. --Niabot (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, VI to me, but not QI. I would prefer the original colors. People are dark. Too much noise and contrast--Miguel Bugallo 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The statue is unfocused, and the whole picture has too much noise.--Snaevar (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Boat in Alanya.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2010 at 14:07:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Boat cruising towards Alanya harbour.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna kallerna 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This photo tells a lot about Alanya. It's about its geography (sea, climate and geology), history (Alanya Castle) and what it has become (a tourist trap). kallerna 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --FieldMarine (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice composition.Steven Walling 17:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose main motive oof, details imo a bit imperceptible. Otherwise, the composition is good. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting scene. Strong composition, if a bit tightly packed. More space between the boat and the point would be nice. The boat is a bit unsharp, and I think the image is tilted slightly CW. No major problems, but they add up. --Avenue (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- This is where i live. Alanya humidity is usually very high like 60 % in the city and much more over the sea. Also this time of the day is not a good time to take pictures in that area. It s a very good picture if we look at thephotographers conditions but it is not a featured picture in my opinion. Mulazimoglu (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Intresting picture. I can´t really see anything wrong with it.--Snaevar (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:A bee on a chrysanthemum.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2010 at 19:48:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bee on chrysanthemum
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Tada008 - uploaded by Tada008 - nominated by Tada008 -- Tada008 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tada008 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment if both (flower and bee) were clearly identified you'll get my support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Not a bee, but a hoverfly, Eristalis sp.. Subject too small, blurry and undetailed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Good idea, but the execution isn't quite good enough. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Mission Santa Clara.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2010 at 04:17:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mission Santa Clara de Asís, on the campus of Santa Clara University in California
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by JaGa - uploaded by JaGa - nominated by Spongie555 -- Spongie555 (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spongie555 (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice lightning, very good quality, very good composition. The croos is imo a superb part of the composition. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ditto. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture. My only feedback is that the sky seems slightly underexposed (did you use a polarizing filter?). --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great picture. But it is to dark. That way it looks not realistic at all. Looks like the beginning of a lunar eclipse. --Niabot (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture, indeed. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Very good overall quality and detail but the image is a bit underexposed. Easy to fix though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded a new version which is a little bit brighter. Is that enough? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- I don't think that was the most appropriate procedure. The original picture should be kept, not only for comparison purposes but also as a deference to the author and nominator. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Agree with Alvesgaspar. What about the value, now, of the previous votes ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It is all the same to me. If you say the new version is bad and inappropriate, especially on the original, please revert my new version. But then it would be nice to see a better version from the underexpose-voters. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per kaʁstn--MASHAUNIX 20:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is a thick white line on the left tower. Trees on the left side have white dots on them, and trees on both sides are unfocused.--Snaevar (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Taro leaf underside, backlit by sun - edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2010 at 00:17:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Underside of taro leaf
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Avenue -- Avenue (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Avenue (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit on the noisy side, bu excellent pic nonetheless. However, why does the metadata say the ISO rating is zero? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That camera leaves the ISO field blank. I'm not sure why it's showing as zero now, though. --Avenue (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very original composition, super sharp picture. --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Like it Basvb (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Superb light, dof and composition. Great wow, but I am a bit concerned that you have turned the contrast knob too much to make it look so surreal. The original is very good too, and I think it appears to be a much truer (but still fascinating) representation of the backlit leaf. --Slaunger (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A very fair point. I wondered about this too. All I can say is that I was a little disappointed in the original, with its glare and somewhat washed-out colours, and that this edited version feels truer to my experience of the leaf's glow. --Avenue (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is it OK to use doping in sports Clin? Well, this is somewhat a doped photo I think. But, if you say that the edited version feels truer to your experience of the leafs glow, I believe you. And sometimes you need to bend reality a bit to catch the viewer. And you have really managed that in this case. Amazing. --Slaunger (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kooritza (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great picture but unfortunately not really sharp --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I was to support, but I think it is not sharp enough at High res, especially the details of the stem. Trully sorry, because it is a great picture.--Jebulon (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentIn my opinion it really cannot be much sharper and still have this very unique "artistic look", which makes it such a great picture. I think that sometimes one has to throw pixel beancounting overboard for the higher sake of the overall impression. Because, I agree with you, that if sharpness is considered as an isolated property it is not overwhelmingly good. --Slaunger (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, that's why I hesitated a lot... Maybe I have supported this in a photograph contest, but here is "Commons"...--Jebulon (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I can't claim it was entirely planned, but after taking the shot I felt that the unfocussed main stem coming towards the camera helped add depth to what's otherwise quite a flat picture. But I respect the opinions of those who oppose. --Avenue (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, whether it works for the individual reviewer is, very much dependent on the personal preferences and likings, which is just fine. --Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful and unique! -- TFCforever (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Leaf veins always have interesting patterns, and you've brought them out in a well composed overall shot. Thank you. --99of9 (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting is not the best in my opinion. Something about it is really off, either it's too soft or the contrast has been manipulated, I'm not sure. Steven Walling 19:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Its a hard to tak picture but i think it needs more contrast or somewhat to make me say wow. Mulazimoglu (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- VS (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants

File:Quito Accordion player.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2010 at 19:37:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Accordion player in Quito
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Accordion player in the Historical Centre of Quito, Ecuador
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cayambe (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically, this is a good image (should nominate it to QI). But as FP goes, I don't see the value of this image for Wikimedia. FPs should be of great value for the project. I don't see how a conventional picture of a street accordion player could be of great value. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What about permission of this man to public his face? Przykuta[edit] 14:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Well, he is a long-standing public performer in the streets of Quito, where I've seen, supported and listened (with delight) to him in 2004, 2006 and 2010. There are quite a number of FPs with recognizable people on Commons: see here, with particular examples being this and this man. I've added the Personality rights warning-Template to the file description. Regards, --Cayambe (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image is valuable for many reasons, and one of them is to point to one of the few options blind people have to make a living in poor countries. On another hand, it is a very humane protrait. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- This is a nice and valuable image. My only concern is the comparison with this one... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There should not be a concern. Two blind accordion players, from two different countries. There are countless similar bug pictures, and one does not exclude the other. If anything, these could start a category of blind or handicapped street musicians, a class of their own. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The more I look at this photograph, the more I like it. There is a Norman Rockwell-like quality to the image. The rich details of ordinary objects, the seam of the pants, the wrinkled leather of the shoes, the worn out case, the taped over keys, the textures... and the chery of the cake is the facial expresion. Visually it is a very powerful humane portrait of a personal tragedy, it evokes compasion, but not pity. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I'm a enthusiast of people's photographs (though I don't take many) and this one is powerful and technically very good. I don't see tragedy here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a very good photograph, in my opinion. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good indeed. --Avenue (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Lütfen duygusal bakmayalım. Bu resim sıradan. Mulazimoglu (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Alvesgaspar--MASHAUNIX 20:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Phyllidiopsis papilligera (Black-spotted Nudibranch - North Haiti).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2010 at 08:09:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Citron (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 08:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There it is! - LeavXC (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A beautiful beastie, but blue fringing/CA is too strong near the ends. I'd support even a crude fix like this edit. --Avenue (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kooritza (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting and instructive --Schnobby (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Remembers me the motto "My end is in my beginning, and my beginning is in my end". I miss an arrow: where is the head ? the tail ? In which direction it swims ? Very strange and interesting. Technically well done IMhO. The fringe is acceptable.--Jebulon (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Backlit (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Jonathunder (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Turbinella pyrum 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 14:48:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Turbinella pyrum, Turbinellidae, Great Rapa Chank; Length 12,5 cm; Originating from a beach near Beruwela, Sri Lanka; the pictured specimen is outstanding by its orange coloured aperture; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 19:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Backlit (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support please provide metadata/exif. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 17:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This causes problems, as the picture constists of five single photos with different data, combined by photoshop. All the shell photos are made with a Panasonic DMC-LZ1. --Llez (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Therefore I added the Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ1 to some of your shell pictures I found - if you don't mind. I would advice you to add the category to all the other such images too so there would be even some clue about the equipment behind the photographs. Thanks =) --Ximonic (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I think, this is the best solution. I'll add this category also to other pictures within the next time. --Llez (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Viborg Christmas street illumination 2010-11-30.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2010 at 22:01:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Slaunger - uploaded by Slaunger - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Felt like we needed a seasonal nomination, and I just got a new tripod, which I wanted to test, and the town I live nearby got new christmas illumination based on LEDs saving 14.5 ton of CO2 emissions as compared to the previous conventional illumination. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I appreciate it was taken with a new tripod Smile, but I believe neither the quality nor the composition is good enough for FP. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Thanks for the review. Could you elaborate a little on quality issue(s) you have noticed? --Slaunger (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
      Well, most of the quality issues I did not like have nothing to do with your skills as a photographer and probably could not have been avoided, but here is what I do not like: The gray and green looking snow, the green lamp (honestly no matter what that lamp would have looked like, it spoils the image for me), not so sharp looking lower foreground, and blurred people in the middle of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
      That's OK. Thanks for replying. I realize the motion-blurred pedestrians could be perceived as a turn off, and it often is for me as well. It was a deliberate "effect" in this case, but I was unsure myself if it was best to include them or not. --Slaunger (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
      I guessed that the people in the image was a deliberate "effect" , and I saw that "effect" in some other images that I supported, but in those image the blurred people took much lesser part of the images than they did in yours. Anyway good luck with the nomination!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good description, which puts the context of this picture in persepctive. FieldMarine (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kooritza (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Congrats for tripod and nice explanation. --Mile (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd have to agree with Mbz1. The blurred people seems to obscure that part of the image than add to it, IMO. The lamp at the top is also distracting. Great Christmas lights! LeavXC (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The blurred people don't bother me; in fact, I'd actually like it more if they were more blurred, to show that they are walking (this pic makes them look like they have several ghosts hovering about them). However, the composition is just too scattered and busy. Still, I agree we need more FPs to fit the season. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't understand what is really featurable (outstanding) here. I'm not against pictures showing the day-to-day life, but I don't find anything special here. The general quality is not perfect (the lamp, the snow...). The road sign prevents me to "enter" this picture. Agree with THFSW concerning the people.--Jebulon (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Good observation regarding the road sign, Jebulon, I had not thought about it that way, but I understand what you mean. --Slaunger (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Thanks for taking your time to review my photo. By and large I agree with the comments. I have gotten some good input regarding how to improve with such a kind of scenary, which is just 5-10 min away. I think I will try a reshoot, perhaps a little earlier in the day, with more people, showing some more activities, and with another position of the camera (near the ground, and at one side of the street pointing more upwards, to avoid the centered composition. I have also spotted a different location on the street, which I think is more suitable, i.e., without the annoying sign). Concerning the composition beign busy: Well, this photo is taken when the street is almost "dead" with most signs taken in. I.e., as clean as i could get it. The new photo I have in mind will be more "busy", but perhaps also more interesting. Let's see Smile. It's an interesting challenge. --Slaunger (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Мыс Мартьян, 5 окт. 2008 042.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2010 at 13:02:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cape Martyan, Crimea, October.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Tada008 - uploaded by Tada008 - nominated by Tada008 -- Tada008 (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tada008 (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The horizon is very tilted. --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technical flaws: chromatic aberrations, at least visible on the light reflections at the bottom of the image, unsharp stones, dull composition and the already noted tilted horizon. Additionally, it lacks a "Wow effect" in my eyes. It could be worth a retry using a broader aspect ratio like at least 3:2 or even a more panoramic one, but you'll need to wait for a more exciting light and to make a more skilful use of your camera and postprocessing: it would be wise to use a tripod, the slowest ISO rating available and a more closed aperture to avoid the unsharp stones. During the postprocessing, you must rework the chromatic aberrations and you could consider a panoramic stitch of several single exposures. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Grand-Duc--MASHAUNIX 21:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Image:KensingtonRoad StefanTomek.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2010 at 16:32:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stefan Tomek, singer of the band Kensington Road
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by -- Backlit (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Backlit (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy background, and the guitar (as well as anything white in the rest of the image) is overexposed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sure thing --AngMoKio (座谈) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support True, there is some noise on the background, but this is a low-light photography scenario, there has to be some tolerance to higher ISOs. Looks like FP to me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You should add the template about featuring the image of a third person on the photograph, and that its use could be legally restricted.--Murdockcrc (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background too noisy, guitar and arms overexposed, blur of the left arm, strange green effect on the ear.--Jebulon (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition not great - too central, blue thing intruding at left. The pose seems a bit static, with the singer glued to the mike. Noise and blur are understandable and tolerable IMO, and while the guitar does glare, I don't think it's quite overexposed. --Avenue (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Arms (right arm) and guitar without definition: overexposed. The head is noised--Miguel Bugallo 02:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is good but making the picture a little bit darker (exposure, iso, aperture, etc). would make it much better. There is the problem with the left arm and guitar, that seems to be overexposed. --Aktron (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Murdockcrc--MASHAUNIX 13:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the image quality is very good considering the difficult conditions. Very nice colors. But I have to agree with Avenue regarding the composition. Still a good photo though.--Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Pholiota malicola.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 22:20:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pholiota malicola
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose downsampled. great shot. good composition, shallow depth of field. would support a full resolution image. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral great image, but the objects at the bottom appear distracting to me--MASHAUNIX 17:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peter and Mashaunix. Quality at the mini size we can see it is good, but poor composition. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Crocodylus acutus mexico 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2010 at 22:17:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice and impressive portrait ! Useful and educational IMO.There is no "source" on the file description page. Could you add it please ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info One of the previous nominations of this photo is one that I recall clearly. It was very strange, yet entertaining. --Slaunger (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yep... it was the good old times, and as some would say, it was not evaluated properly ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Same as I voted last time. --Slaunger (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose quality is as bad as at the previous candidature --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Bad quality ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question And how do you define bad quality? or is it just your opinion? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Actually a great image taken in a wild!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done! -- TFCforever (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. --Ximonic (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting photo, but I don't think this composition exemplifies the best of Commons. It's useful to show the animal in its habitat like this, but cutting it off at the head is a poor compositional choice overall in my opinion. Steven Walling 19:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice illustration of the skin texture blending with the wavy water surface. --Elekhh (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support even I would prefer a little more contrast (if it is feasible) Ggia (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ggia, one of my concerns sometimes about adjusting contrast, curves, levels, etc. is that the adjustments may not make the image fit for some applications. I try to leave the images as much to the center of characteristics so that the final user can make the necessary adjustments to fit her/his needs. For example, if I push the contrast up so that it looks good on screen or for a particular need, where high contrast is needed, I may make the image unfit for a low contrast application, a background screen, for example, where some of the values may either wash up or tone down completely. Commons is not a final use of images, and people should be aware of that. To process pictures just so they look good on screen is not necessarily the best practice from the graphic arts perspective. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Sorry (I'm not an expert), poor quality and poor composition (too tight or I don't like the crop). --Miguel Bugallo 01:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To me (I'm not an expert and I can't say what I want in English), there aren't something sharp or in focus. Español: Explicación: No hay nada en la foto realmente nítido. En parte se debe a evitar el ruido, en parte a una toma deficiente. Lo único que se puede considerar en foco es el negro de los ojos (ni siquiera hay brillo). Por otro lado, el hecho de que esté mojado el sujeto no es disculpa suficiente. El reflejo de la luz en el agua y en el "crocodylus" implica una inadecuada perspectiva. Sobre la pobrísima calidad de la imagen que la superficie del agua transmite, no se me ocurre qué decir, solamente que algo así para mí no es fp (¿perspectiva?,...). Lo siento, veo la imagen diferente a como tú la ves, pero acepto que tú la consideres FP y lo que otros digan, y acepto el resultado final, y no protesto ni pongo medallas, ni dejo de ponerlas. La composición carece de expresividad, pero eso es subjetivo, para mí una buena composición con este sujeto precesaría de mayor campo (y mayor calidad). Saludos y disculpas--Miguel Bugallo 01:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Miguel, todo mundo tiene el derecho a su opinión, y tienes el derecho de que la imagen te guste o no. Sin embargo, una opinión no es un dictamen definitivo acerca de la calidad de una cosa o no, sobre todo considerando la fuente de la crítica. En cuanto a tu opinión de que si la imagen te gusta o no no tengo nada que decir, y así como tu expresas tu opinión acerca de la calidad de esta imagen, yo, como autor y recipiente de tu crítica, y de igual manera que tu calificas de pobrísima calidad, así considero la calidad de tu análisis fotográfico, ya que, en mi opinión, es evidente la ausencia de conocimiento del medio. Me sorprende tu visceralidad. Te invito a que veas el uso de la imagen en Wikipedia para que constates su uso que estoy seguro, no se debe a la falta de calidad que tu aludes. Saludos. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm learning. Español:Sigo pensando que la luz rebota demasiado en el objeto retirándole nitidez y mostrando que es preferible una toma a otra hora o con otra perspectiva en la relación cámara-objeto-fuente de luz. Es muy probable que esté confundido. Si te parece injustificado, retiro el voto. Gracias--Miguel Bugallo 04:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Es posible que esté confundido y, aunque la imagen no me gusta, tampoco me gusta votar sin motivo claro. A pesar de no percibir ni una de las escamas del cocodrilo, pero considerando que se puede deber a que acaba de acceder a la superficie, retiro el primer voto.--Miguel Bugallo 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Estimado Miguel. Respeto tu voto en cualquier sentido, yo solo respondo a la justificación del voto que haces y a lo cual respondo: la composición es un sujeto en diagonal, siendo la diagonal una composición generalmente dinámica pero que también puede acarrear problemas de profundidad de campo. En este caso se debe a la distancia focal y la distancia cámara-sujeto. El movimiento del sujeto y del agua reconozco su movimiento y falta de nitidez, pero no existe regla ni de que todo deba ser congelado ni de cuanto movimiento es permisible. Lo importante a final de cuentas es como interactúan todos los elementos y si el resultado final es aceptable o no, y su aceptación en si depende de varias variables que van mucho mas allá de aspectos técnicos solamente. Por último, esta fotografía fue tomada en un entorno natural en donde es imposible controlar muchas variables fotográficas y uno se limita a la oportunidad que el sujeto ofrece, cuando lo ofrece y en donde lo ofrece. En cuanto a su piel, esta está diseñada para mimetizar el entorno, no tiene escamas y además de eso, el efecto del agua hacen difícil su buena representación. En este caso particular las propiedades finas de la piel no las considero tan importante, pero si quieres un detalle lo puedes encontrar aquí [[10]]. Saludos, --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMulazimoglu (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Jebulon--MASHAUNIX 14:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Reptiles

File:Sea pen porcelain crab.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 09:00:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sea pen porcelain crab
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Citron (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeDoes not keep one's promise at high resolution. Very noisy, not really sharp, and strong chromatic aberrations.--Jebulon (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose great image, but the way the borders cut the image ruins it to me--MASHAUNIX 21:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Citron (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Antonius Kloster BW 7.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 10:07:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION