Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2009

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


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


Contents

File:Natalie close-up in front of the Eiffel Tower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 20:07:34
Natalie close-up in front of the Eiffel Tower.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info photographed, uploaded, and nominated by Diti — 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See the bid on eBay. ;) Diti the penguin 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Diti the penguin 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose background does not help. Picture does not illustrate the fursuit very well. Plus the design of the fursuit is very likely copyrighted. --Dschwen (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, I kind of knew that background would not please, but I only had my 70-300mm telephoto lens (a friend of mine got luckier ;). I have a lot of photos which would illustrate the whole fursuit better, but this is a close-up (so we can see, for example, the little holes composing the eyes and allow the fursuiter to see). And for the copyright status, as for the reason File:Anthrocon_2007 Disabled fursuiter in parade.jpg was undeleted, the photo's licensing status is independent of the design of the fursuit (I read big parts of the Copyright Act with GreenReaper (talk · contribs) for figuring it out). Diti the penguin 20:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    That surprises me. De minimis certainly won't apply, neither will FOP. The reasons given in the undelete seem a bit fishy. Fursuit is original enough, and the license applying is for the photograph, not for the design what does that mean? The designer will have copyright on the design, just taking a picture will not get around it. The photographer cannot relicense the design of the suit. With your train of thought FOP would not be necessary at all for example. That is just wrong. --Dschwen (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    In general, here's why I think fursuit photographs are fine copyright-wise:
    • Copyright law makes a distinction between designs and works of art. Designs have fewer protections, especially when they form part of a useful article. A fursuit design is precisely what the name suggests - a design embodied in a useful article of apparel.
    • The presence of a proposal for the Design Piracy Prohibition Act suggests apparel is not comprehensively covered by current copyright law.
    • I can't speak for other areas of fashion, but there is a very strong implied license regarding the use of fursuit designs for photography. In almost all cases, these costumes are commissioned for specific owners who have a character in mind, and it is understood by all parties that they are made to be seen, photographed, and reproduced in audiovisual recordings, like a sports mascot. I've published hundreds of photos and there are hundreds like me. No designer has complained, nor would I expect them to.
    • At least one major fursuiting company specifically addresses the right to make copies of the design - they consider it to be held by the owner of the costume (and not by the person rendering the artwork), even though they themselves recognize the need for art and suggest artists for this purpose. Some creators even go to the extent of arranging photoshoots for fursuits which they created.
    • To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, no fursuit designer has submitted or intends to submit their work to the Copyright Office. Submission is required within two years for designs embodied in a useful article. It is also not common for artists to require creators to place a design notice on a fursuit.
    • It's just silly. Without the right to take photographs, you would have no good way to (say) auction the work to others over the Internet, as is typically done. GreenReaper (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately It's just silly is not a compelling legal argument. Furthermore I disgaree about your interpretation of the fur figure as design instead of artwork. What if it had been a Mikey Mouse suit? --Dschwen (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
      • If the suit would have represented the current Mickey Mouse design, I think Commons couldn't have been able to host a photo of it, because Mickey Mouse is a copyrighted character. Yet, licensing of this file is perfectly fine, as I am the photographer. Commons just doesn't accept most of the files which would not be free enough to be used safely. Per GreenReaper (talk · contribs) above, a fursuit differs from a mascot or any other copyrighted character, by the fact that fursuits are meant to be photographed since the beginning because their owners wear them for that reason. Perhaps the Walt Disney Company could sue us for that —and we even don't know, we consider them as derivative works but maybe they accept it—, but a fursuiter couldn't. Nintendo could sue the owner of this Lucario fursuit, but not the photographer. Diti the penguin 19:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Nintendo could sue the owner of this Lucario fursuit this is simply not true. It is up to the photographer to make sure he doesn't wrongly relicense copyrighted artwork. I'm assuming the fursuit maker has licensed the design from Nintendo. Otherwise the make could be sued by Nintendo. But I fail to see a scenario where the wearer could be sued (last time I checked bad taste wasn't illegal (not even in france)). --Dschwen (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Oh, actually, that's because a fursuiter is presumed to be the copyright holder of their suit (and, if the fursuit is commissioned, they implicitly grant rights, so derivative work —a 3D adaptation— can be made). I believe, for almost any case (I didn't say “for any case” though), that fursuiters, copyright holders of their characters, does the same for photography. “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” —Benjamin Franklin (my personal thought). Diti the penguin 15:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Wisecracking is not going to help. How about you address the concerns. Who designed the character? (This is not about freedom or security it is about abiding to copyright laws). --Dschwen (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this one! --Aktron (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Somehow it's funny but plush and steel hardly fits together - wanna say the dominating tower in the background is a bit disturbing. The copyright thing should be doublechecked. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due composition: distracting background. Adambro (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting background. kallerna 12:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting background.--SKvalen (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think that is a great picture ! --Garfieldairlines (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination As it seems that that kind of background doesn't fall within FP requirements. I'll nominate several photos in the future, but their background are part of the scene and cannot be removed ; while —I knew I should have thought about it!— this photo could have been taken without the Eiffel Tower behind the fursuiter.

For the copyright status, unless you want to delete the whole Category:Fursuits, I believe we could assume that a fursuiter want their fursuit to be photographed. Anyone is warmly encouraged to discuss about it (I'll keep this page in my watchlist). Diti the penguin 19:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether these guys want to be photographed is completely irrelevant for the purpose of determining the copyright status. And neither is OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a valid argument. --Dschwen (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, maybe you can explain me why my argument isn't valid, then? Fursuits does somehow have an unique use within the furry fandom (hence, the photos in this category can be taken as a whole), while mascots and cosplay costumes depend on the case. De we really need an OTRS permission for photos of fursuits? If so, please tell me, so I'll send one for every picture in which Natalie appear. I just —personally— think that is nonsense (COM:DM can't apply because each of the seven main fursuits is the subject of the photo), but I can do it. Diti the penguin 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. Diti the penguin 10:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel photo.png, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2009 at 16:05:36
protein ribbon drawing

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dcrjsr - uploaded by Dcrjsr - nominated by Dcrjsr -- Dcrjsr (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is probably the most aesthetically pleasing of the original hand-drawn ribbon representations of proteins from the early '80s, from which the now-ubiquitous computer-graphics ribbon images of protein 3D structure developed. This 8-stranded barrel protein fold has turned out to be extremely common for enzymes. This image thus has historical as well as scientific value. It is from a scan of a photograph (slide) of the original pastel drawing (by Jane Richardson | me), retouched somewhat to even the background lighting. -- Dcrjsr (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Musia! (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--very fine pastle sketchMadhurantakam
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you so much for uploading this. It's incredibly interesting to see an example of a major biochemical model by the inventor of this means of modelling it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dcrjsr: you are Jane S Richardsson, then? I would suppose so as you have uploaded it and say it is yours, but why do you refer to yourself in third person in your comment above then? Plrk (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment--may be u can add the g-crystalline proteins sketch as well Jane Madhurantakam
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, the Dcrjsr account is Dave and me; I wasn't trying to be coy - I don't really know the rhetoric of this medium yet! Indeed, we will try to contribute various other of our images to the Commons as well - but I'm afraid only a few of our other photos of hand drawings have the technical quality and resolution of this one. Dcrjsr (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    Awesome! Plrk (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment After a useful comment by Pstanton on Wikipedia, I've cleaned up a small glitch in the upper-left corner and replaced the image with TriosephosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel.png (the old one TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel.png is still there if anyone wants to compare). Also, thanks to Lycaon for making a clear-background version. Dcrjsr (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support And for scientific interest, is this a possible candidate for Valued Images? - Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GerardM (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC) important and encyclopaedic
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Note that a 1600 x 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level." ? kallerna 18:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1600 x 1200 is quite small, and below the Featured Pictures guidelines. Since this seems to be originally from a drawing, can you re-scan it at a higher resolution? (As high as possible to produce a PNG file less than 12MB.) JalalV (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The slide from which this was scanned has rather uneven background lighting, which took a great deal of hand-work to even out for this image and is therefore not a good source for higher resolution. It would be possible, and desirable, to re-photograph the original drawing (which is still in good shape under glass} but that is not feasible in one day, given our packed schedule for tomorrow. Is it possible to extend the comment period on this image, since my newbie ignorance made it visible here only on Jan 17, not Jan 14? Actually, the reason I nominated it, in spite of the 1600x1200 quote, is because drawings are supposed to be done as png's, and as a png it is 3.1Mb. I do agree that since it's possible to get higher resolution, I should definitely do that. However, those few extra days would be appreciated, in order to follow this last-minute suggestion that would improve what's publicly available here. Dcrjsr (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As other opposers. If, BTW, you are certain that you will be able to provide us with a higher resolution (as good quality) scan, then you might consider withdrawing this one an nominating the new one when it is ready. Lycaon (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
result (for original version): 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now it looks great! --SvonHalenbach (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC) too late --D-Kuru (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I decided to change my vote, as the timing of this nomination seems unclear. However, please, please upload the higher quality (close to 12MB) version! I'm supporting because I think the "delist and replace" option is better than relisting this picture all over again, but I am trusting that the higher res version will be available soon... --JalalV (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC) too late --D-Kuru (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Replaced image with the requested high-resolution re-scan of the original drawing; somewhat truer color balance. Included some of the surrounding mat, to emphasize that it is a physical drawing. Dcrjsr (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks! Personally, I would crop-out the mat, especially as the original drawing that was voted on did not have it, and frames are looked down upon on at FP. --JalalV (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK, here it is now without the mat. Dcrjsr (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Ichneumonidae mating.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2009 at 12:43:36
Ichneumonidae mating

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Two Ichneumonidae flies mating. The flies are very small and maintaining a good DOF at this high level of maginification is very difficult. Good quality and lighting of a very rarely seen and photographed incident (according to the one who helped identify the subject). Created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 12:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad 12:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting shot.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oh, dear! Flashing like hell :-)) There is 2 much overexposure (wings, thorax, abdomen) . Otherwise nice. --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This picture would not have been possible without flash as a fast shutter speed was required since the mating wasps were not immobile --Muhammad 18:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree - maybe not possible for you :-)) 1/250 with flashlight Macro isn't that difficult nor magic and a photographer has to abide by the rules as in every genre. I have nothing against flashlight in general but an overexposure with many areas of total white (255,255,255) isn't acceptable and doesn't knock me off my socks, nowadays . Friendly advice: Raise the distance (more DOF) and use a wider aperture to gain a faster shutter speed and crop -or- use softer flashlight techniques -or- retouche your pictures before nominating. --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
        • By raising the distance do you mean move back from the subject and not shoot at 1:1? By re-touching, would I be able to solve the overexposure on the wings? (BTW, friendly advice much appreciated :-)) --Muhammad 20:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
          • You should try this :-)) Take a ruler and place it in a 45 degree position, focus a number (the number should be rotated 90 degrees clockwise when setting up corectly) and make some pictures while raising the distance, start with 1:1 and go up to 50cm. You will see that DOF will enlarge and with the ruler you can meassure that effect very exactly. This experiment in mind will help you in finding good strategies in the future. Regarding retouching - I'am shure that you can remove the selective overexposure with ease as the picture isn't overexposed at all. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks ;-) --Muhammad 18:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kjetil_r 19:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Richard Bartz. kallerna 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Avjoska (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm in doubt. On the one hand, Richard is right about the overexposed areas. On the other hand, it's an extraordinary picture with many qualities too. So, finally, I prefer to support... -- MJJR (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre BW 1.JPG not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 14:52:07
Church of the Holy sepulchre, Jerusalem

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is kinda odd. kallerna 15:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image buildup is certainly not balanced - strange angles --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Cycad cone.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 17:49:57
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A rare image of details of a cone of an endangered species of cycad. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- I can appreciate that the image is rare, but it should be possible to take another picture when lighting is more benefitial (early morning, for example)? Anrie (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This picture was taken around 10 in the morning. What do you think is wrong with the lighting? Thanks for your comments. Muhammad 14:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It looks extremely flat, with little depth. Partly that may be the lighting, and partly perhaps because the image is very overexposed in the red channel (check the histogram). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because the composition could/should be much better. I don't like the light/colors too much, either. --Siebengang (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:The camel corps at Beersheba2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 19:32:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by American Colony Jerusalem - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:The camel corps at Beersheba.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support From what I see, the restoration is good. Diti the penguin 20:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Anrie (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- GerardM (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good EV --Muhammad 05:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definitely interesting subject, but composition and aesthetics are weak, contrast is low. Crapload (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karel (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the fact that you can actually see the expressions on their faces. -- Belasd (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I must agree with Crapload. kallerna 19:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Nice work. --Dschwen (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great historic photo! Vanjagenije (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not special enough. Lycaon (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Twdragon (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Cub polar bear is nursing 2.OGG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 22:07:55

Adambro, I thought that you'll be glad to find out that instead of disrupting Commons, I at last started doing something useful. I have hoped you will support my efforts  :) Just kidding. Thank you the the interest in my video and for your vote.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • More Pictogram voting info.svg Info May I please tell you a little bit more about taking of the video? I had my film Canon SLR in one hand and my video camera in other. It was bitterly cold, and the tundra buggy the video was taken from was shaking. Of course I do realize that only the end result matters.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The camera shake is not that bad, and it could be removed entirely with a bit of post-processing. I believe you can do that with ALE (Anti Lamenessing Engine, http://auricle.dyndns.org/ALE/ ). --Dschwen (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for watching the video and for the kind comment, Daniel. I'm ashamed of myself, but I have to ad admit that I have not a slightest idea how to download this video back to my computer. So, I guess I've no choice except letting it go as it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The postprocessing should be performed on the original video data. You don't have that anymore? --Dschwen (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Then it is probabably impossible because the video was edited by user:Dhatfield and he/she did a great job with my original. If I'm to edit my original now, it will look much worse than the nominated one. Thank you for taking your time to comment, Daniel.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I agree, he did do a pretty good job. Did he have the original material though. or did he work with the version you uploaded. Anyhow this is probably a moot point, as I just saw in the linked nomination, that this video was already voted on and supported. Why renoninate? --Dschwen (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
He worked with the version I uploaded as I recal, but I am not positive. This video was supported on English Wikipedia. I believed it is OK to nominate it on Commons. I'm sorry, if I've done something wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Oops, pardon me. I didn't notice the link went over to en. --Dschwen (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Austrian military hospital WWIb.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 04:10:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:The Spit Bruny Island.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 01 Feb 2009 at 17:16:38
Spit Bruny Island

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by norro 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The photograph shows an uncommon piece of landscape, has good technical quality and is aesthetically pleasing. --norro 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough wow for me, and nice illustration of such landscape feature. -- Klaus with K (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Decent --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • reluctant Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Size through downsampling forces me to oppose. Lycaon (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral An impressive image, but the resolution is very small and even at this resolution the technicalities are only so so. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, wow, and more than 2mp despite the downsample. --Muhammad 05:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Avjoska (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Plrk (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's awesome, but: the handrail is almost white and the size is too small. kallerna 13:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stop complaining about downsampling and be glad that the image is on Commons. This is a repository for free images, not a crusade for the five freedoms. It is a privilege for Commons to receive the file in a free format, not a right to receive it in the highest quality. Do not bite the hand that feeds you. This image has a great composition, cool subject matter... who cares bout the downsampling, it could even have been cropped would we not know better. Freedom to share (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is what is called an isthmus, or isthme in French. This one was discovered during the Baudin expedition to Australia and then called isthme Saint-Aignant according to François Péron, Voyage de découvertes aux terres australes, p. 145. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Curnen (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avala (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Size. It is really near the lower limit, without mitigating circumstances for the small size. --JalalV (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Mitigating reasons are required when the picture is less than 2mp. Muhammad 04:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose size Gnangarra 10:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As Freedom to Share. --Karel (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ala z talk 22:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Crapload (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support bit noisy, but good composition - Man On Mission (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, with wow effect--Jagro (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 19 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. D-Kuru (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Larus pacificus Bruny Island.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 17:43:22
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 17:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad 17:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, image is below size limit and overly cropped Lycaon (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Still an impressive bird and a very good quality shot, shame about the unwillingness to submit large sized images. Lycaon (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me, a 4 KB difference (1,169 × 1,707 = 1,995,483) from the minimal image size requirement should not lead to a {{FPX}}. This is a technically awesome photo. Diti the penguin 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Well, awesome is a very elastic term :-)) It's good but I dont like the tight crop on the left side --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but there is no technical reason why this image should be below the 2Mpx limit. The small image size is purely the decision of the uploader, and FPC voters have long looked with disfavour at images that are artificially small merely because the uploader has decided to hold the higher-resolution version back. It is important, in my view, that we encourage users to upload at high resolution, and we can do that by supporting the 2Mpx limit. I would support this if a higher-resolution version were to be uploaded. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
A technical reason might be to increase the sharpness. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's a retarded reason. The sharpness isn't actually increased, it's just harder to see the blur because it's smaller. Information is lost. Plrk (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I was aware of that, but it could still be a reason. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Keeping bigger resolutions for oneself is a choice, and voting against a picture for that reason makes me think that people vote for Commons and not for the picture itself. It's not by absolutely wanting a high resolution version that you will appeal uploaders, you know. See what it lead to for File:Bébé Phoque de Weddell - Baby Weddell Seal.jpg: people were like “you don't have control on your high-res version any more, sorry” (while upload was a honest mistake), and I'm now sure that Ehquionest (talk · contribs) will never want to upload again. But yes, I see your point. Diti the penguin 17:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
That's probably the reason for not uploading the full resolution version of the file. In some way I do understand him for not uploading it, since I'm heading in the same direction more and more. Wikipedia's articles can be well illustrated with a photograph <2mpx and Wikipedia is becoming a free haven for companies, who can now obtain and use good pictures for free. I'm not against school children using them for projects at school, but large companies... As an example: Take a look at the website of the Top of the Rock observation platform in NYC (Rockefeller Center). The intro (so don't skip it) uses a panorama taken by user Dschwen and they probably didn't pay a dime (This one is uploaded under GNU, so he probably doesn't mind, but that's besides the point.). If you want to encourage photographers to upload larger files, you will have to do better then dismissing the pictures from becoming FP's. There is currently no license available on Wikipedia, which doesn't permit the use of files outside of Wikipedia's projects.--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The the reason for there being no license under which an image can be restricted is because we are a free repository that is the whole purpose of Commons and the reason for Wikipedia and all he other Wikimedia projects. I sure Dschwen has many photos that have been used else where, I have had a few used even Britannica uses one of my images. Ultimately we make a choice as to how much and what we choose to upload, if that choice means that the image doesnt meet the communities criteria for FP then thats a choice the uploader makes. FP is about being our best work and small images have a harder time convincing the community they are our best work. Gnangarra 10:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd probably upload at full size if commons had a non-commercial licence. Opposes based on downsampling at COM:FPC don't motivate me. Downsampling can increase the apparent sharpness of an image, in my case though it isn't needed, I am using high quality equipment and (usually) good technique. BTW, The slight crop only needs to be changed by four pixels to meet the 2mpix requirement. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
To the best of my understanding, Creative Commons licenses do not include a resolution restriction where below a certain resolution the license applies but above the resolution it doesn't. I witnessed a pre-Creative Commons era real life situation where an image that did not exceed 300px and was watermarked with the photographers name was used to make a print that was 20 inches X 16 inches as that was what was available to the interested eh, print maker. I just don't think that your need to control how the image is managed can be obtained by resolution restrictions that you are using here and perhaps you should only show the image at the non-commercial show places that live up to your restriction requirements. A lot of people take nice photographs, those interested in reviews and acceptance need to consider who their audience is. -- carol (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Avjoska (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per MichaelMaggs. Plrk (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon. kallerna 13:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The small size isn't really FP quality. However, it is perfectly acceptable for an author to upload at whatever size they want, to be used for other purposes of Commons. JalalV (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose size is an issue the composition is too cramped for my liking. Gnangarra 10:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't mind the crop. I only oppose down sampled images, if they lack in detail through it. That isn't the case here. And I'm not going to give you a hard time for coming 4 KB short on image size. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The bird is very well focused and the image has good detail but the crop is too tight near the tail, and too low with the unfocused ground. Mitigating reason for downscaling below the limit such a tight crop picture of a still bird? --Javier ME (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ogata Gekko, Women in Daily Life.jpg, not featured (insufficient votes)[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 18:57:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ogata Gekko - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karel (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Please propose your reason to oppose, Karelj
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Twdragon (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (insufficient votes). D-Kuru (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Paul Cézanne, Mont Sainte-Victoire.jpg, not featured (insufficient votes)[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 18:46:03
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Paul Cézanne - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karel (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Karel, although I think his accusations might have been too strong. Not impressed by this painting. --JalalV (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (insufficient votes). D-Kuru (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Cole, The Oxbow.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 18:44:57
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Thomas Cole - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Javier ME (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small (original is 130.8 × 193 cm). Lycaon (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Lycaon. kallerna 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:The Five Deer Hermitage.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 18:43:22
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Li Shida - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- GerardM (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Nice image from an important collection.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A valuable picture, but it looks like there are several dirt stains? I am not a restorationist, but it looks like a straight scan. Unfortunately, historical images suffer because they need to be judged twice. One, how impressive the original is, and two, the quality of the restoration. I would say this passes the first, but to my untrained eye, not the second. --JalalV (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacking wow. Lycaon (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose kallerna 19:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Japanese archer 1878b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 20:34:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Japanese archer 1878.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SvonHalenbach (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kosiarz-PL 15:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova is one of the most important contributors to Wikipedia, so I suggest you think twice before making accusations like these. Nice job with the restoration. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Do 'the most important contributors to Wikipedia' have more rights than the lesser contributors? Lycaon (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
No, they don't, but the remark concerned a statement by Karel, which has been removed. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Then I suggest one thinks twice before making accusations to any contributor, regardless of his/her importance. ;-). Lycaon (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This so called restoration does not impress me. A mere crop would have sufficed. Maybe a slight levels adjustment. But altering the paper structure by removing inclusions is neither necessary, nor do I think it is even acceptable. That clone-job time is better spent elsewhere (removing real artifacts like scratches or fold-marks on scans). --Dschwen (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is just a drawing, I don't find it very special. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is pretty darn cool (when seen in larger size) Crapload (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Historical valuable image --Twdragon (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow --Pom² (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:James Watt's Workshop.jpg, not featured (FPX)[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 12:08:58
A photo of the inside of James Watt's workshop, where he spent the majority of his 'retirement' working on inventions such as a machine to copy statues. The workshop was preserved after his death and was then transported wholesale to the Science Museum in London, where it is currently walled-in and not visible to the public.

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 is of insufficient quality 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.

Lycaon (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because highlights are overexposed 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.

Crapload (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:18th dynasty pharaonic crown by John Campana.jpg, not featured (FPX)[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 07:10:17
Ancient Egyptian crown

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 is below size requirements 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.

Lycaon (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Model of a chariot from the Oxus Treasure by Nickmard Khoey.jpg, not featured (FPX)[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 06:56:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

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 is below size requirements 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.

Lycaon (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Nižbor, opylování květin II.jpg, not featured (FPX)[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2009 at 12:33:09
A flower being inflorested near Nižbor, Central Bohemian region, Czech Republic

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Aktron (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because nothing on the picture is identified 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.

Please also categorize better. Lycaon (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I'd think about that, but I did not :-) Well for the next time. --Aktron (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, for starters, the butterfly is probably a Zygaena sp. (exact species to be checked) and the flower a Centaurea sp. (again, species to be checked). Lycaon (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but I am not a botanician or zoologician so a great risk of error is there. I'd advise someone much more skilled to help there. --Aktron (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Aktron. You could ask here for propper identification on the butterfly. I think it's Zygaena (Mesembrynus) purpuralis, Zygaeninae in Germany called Blutströpfchen (Stresemann 2) Regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Aktron (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Trajan’s Kiosk (Josh Whitley).jpg, not featured (FPX)[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 09:33:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION

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 is below size requirements 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.

Lycaon (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Might I suggest that you read the Guidlines at the top of the page, Leoboudv. 203.35.135.133 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FILE:Platanus.JPG, not featured (FPX)[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 21:45:08
Platanus trees in South America

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 file is insufficiently identified, noisy, not sharp, oversaturated and probably suffers from perspective issues. 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.

Lycaon (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not sure this justifies FPX template rather than simple Oppose. But I can't support it because I agree with Lycaon's comments. There should be a bit more detail of the leaves of at least one tree, but these are disappointing. I am wondering whether there is a general fault with the recent crop of cameras, that they offer 7 to 10 Mpx images with 4 to 5 Mpx optics? We did not see the problems before because the image resolution masked it. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this is an unnecessary FPX template. I would agree with an oppose opinion about this photo regarding sharpness and noisiness. Apart from insufficient file data (?), I don't think the other factors (saturation and perspective issues) are a problem. It's a personal choice. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Identification is insufficient actually means that the trees should be identified (scientifically) to species level as they are the main topic of the photograph. IMO FPX is justifiable for any of the major shortcomings (i.e. id) and the others are just corroborating issues. Lycaon (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Identification is not required for featured pictures, unlike quality pictures. Diti the penguin 11:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Id is always required if an organism is the main topic of the image. Mitigation can be given (→generic level) for difficult stuff like some insects or composites, but never for organisms like e.g. birds or trees. Lycaon (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lycaon is right. A FP should be perfect regarding an ID, propper file name & description. These pictures will be POTD someday and are the best of the best what Commons offers out there. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Thank you for the info Lycaon, you should put it on the nomination requirements. :) Diti the penguin 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tiago, please don't remove nominations from the candidate list as long they are not closed propperly and being archived. You can apply the '''{{withdraw}}''' template if you want to to cut your nomination short. Regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • My apologies, Richard. When I read that after 24 hours, if no contrary views on the FPX template would be made, the nomination should be closed. I misunderstood that I should remove it. I will apply the withdraw template instead. Thanks for the info. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC))


Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - At the Edge of the Brook (1875).jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2009 at 20:36:41
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An image that does not even give a hint of a source should not be a "featured picture" on the Commons. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- AndreasPraefcke (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Indeed, it should not even be on Commons. I have nominated it for deletion as "no source", and it may be that that will flush out the missing information. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 14:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist JalalV (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Suspend for the moment, pending Maggs' deletion review. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The author is known and died more than 100 years ago. I could not care less about a source. It is completely orthogonal. Crapload (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Avala (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Musia! (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --SvonHalenbach (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Missing source is not a reason to delist the image. Try to find out the source. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - Man On Mission (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --D-Kuru (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Gdańsk kamienice przy Długim Targu.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 17:05:00
Houses in Gdańsk

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Sfu (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done stiching. --Curnen (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    Well ... actually it's not stiching. I've only did a perspective correction with hugin. But it's still created with hugin. I'm going to change the template text in order for it not to be mistaking. Sfu (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definitely a QI, but not FP-quality. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting, clear, nice colors. This picture struck me more than many other FPs. JalalV (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of "wowness". kallerna 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Avjoska (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ala z talk 07:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and agree with User:Massimo Catarinella and User:Kallerna. Light is suboptimal and there are some heads without bodies along the lower edge. --Siebengang (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not liking the lighting all that much. --Dori - Talk 03:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Zepper-BK 117-C2-(EC145)-SchweizerischeRettungsflugwacht.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 17:09:58
EC 145 air ambulance

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Curnen - uploaded by Curnen - nominated by Curnen -- Curnen (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Hope you like it, too ;-) Curnen (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do. --norro 17:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, not exactly sharp, but alright. --Aqwis (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it too. :) Diti the penguin 17:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SvonHalenbach (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I particularly like the snow being kicked up in the bottom right portion of the image.JohnIngraham (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The chopper is sharp, but maybe too much so: there are white halos from overprocessing. Otherwise fine for me. Lycaon (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Lycaon + the snow is again blue + lack of sharpness. It's cool thou. kallerna 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I can foresee you opposing to a future FP depicting icebergs, you saying that it is too blue. ;) Diti the penguin 20:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice photo--Jagro (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Schleienlöcher Hard 360° Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 20:32:34
Schleienlöcher nature reserve

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info 360° Pano with 28 Pics: The Schleienlöcher nature reserve in Hard (Austria) with view towards the Pfänder the Gebhardsberg and the Bregenzerwald. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Wozu hast du 28 Aufnahmen gebraucht ? :-)) --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
versteh die Frage nicht ganz. Um rundum zu kommen. :-| ? --Böhringer (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hast du Hochkantbilder in einer Reihe gemacht ? Mich interessiert die Technik --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
ja, und je näher das Objekt ist, desto grösser sollte die Bildüberlappung sein, damit keine Stichingfehler vorkommen. --Böhringer (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Bei mir wird das immer nix, zefix :-)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support impressive ! --ianaré (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sufficiently interesting composition, poor harsh lighting. Crapload (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Zaandam2.jpg, Withdraw[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 21:57:24
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by James Abbott McNeill Whistler - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Zaandam.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice restoration, Gnangarra 10:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment These are not uploads but restorations. Quite a relevant and different thing. GerardM (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- different type of work of an important artist.. The restoration makes it useful. GerardM (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I must agree with the sentiment expressed by Karel, although I do think his accusations went too far. I think that Durova (and others) do some excellent restorations, and that these are a very valuable part of Commons. Unfortunately, not everything should be featured. This picture could have the best restoration in the world, and I still wouldn't want it featured, as the original is not very striking, despite whatever historical value it might have. I would recommend choosing from among the high quality restorations, and choosing the most powerful images from among them to be nominated as featured. These represent and advertise the category of historical pictures in a much stronger way. In the same manner, I hope modern photographers will only choose the best of their photos to be nominated as featured. --JalalV (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as JalalV. Wow, however ill-defined, also has its place here. Lycaon (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per JalalV. kallerna 15:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nom. per feedback. Durova (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Frans Hals, De magere compagnie.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 22:14:31
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Frans Hals - uploaded, nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Why should he stop? These are great pictures of important pieces of art. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Prefer above painting. --JalalV (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cropped with several centimeters on all four sides. Lycaon (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lycaon. kallerna 15:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 

File:Bartholomeus van der Helst, Banquet of the Amsterdam Civic Guard in Celebration of the Peace of Münster.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 22:12:31
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Bartholomeus van der Helst - uploaded, nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support i like it. could you upload such pictures as png in the future? --SvonHalenbach (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Please don't. --Dschwen (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Why should he stop? These are great pictures of important pieces of art. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like this painting, and would be happy to see it featured in some form. Just a couple of reservations: a) Is this the best resolution we can get? b) Is there any way to fix the two vertical lines on the right and left of the painting? (I don't know if this is possible or not) --JalalV (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Indeed a bit small for an oeuvre that is 2.32 × 5.47 m :-o. Lycaon (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lycaon. kallerna 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's great image, and it's not small. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:John Singer Sargent, Gondoliers’ Siesta.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 22:10:49
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 

File:Night Watch detail 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 22:09:26
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Rembrandt - uploaded, nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why not the whole painting? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not his most interesting piece. --JalalV (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karel (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see the point of featuring a very small part of a much larger painting. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- MartinD (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose kallerna 19:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a very important detail - imposible light, but rather... Valued images. Artists know. Przykuta (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pyramid of 35 spheres animation original.gif, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2009 at 00:27:50
Spheres!

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Blotwell - uploaded by Blotwell - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a really cool picture, but there's something troubling me on the top sphere and I can't put my finger on what it is. But I'm no expert, so no vote from me :). Patrícia msg 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The top sphere looks like a billboard --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Teaching aids are important. It displays refraction, reflection, rotation & color multiplication, but sorry, it looks a bit cheap and the billboard effect (top sphere) is odd. --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support interesting animation, the top ball just appears to be static, Gnangarra 10:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose scenery and lighting are terrible at this rendered animation --Simonizer (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support relaxing.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The backgroud is odd + as other opposers. kallerna 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Richard Bartz - sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support interesting! (Know Nothing (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why the top sphere looks odd is that it does not rotate with the rest. It is like a fixed pivot. And spaced off by a layer of invisible lubricating oil. Perhaps it needs some reflection of the stack or some detail which would rotate. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Magnifique ! --Dsant (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers. Lycaon (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Moon behind tree.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2009 at 15:45:06
Moon behind tree

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Kprateek88. This is only cropped, not downsampled. -- Kprateek88 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kprateek88 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Kinda dark... Just not my cup of tea. kallerna 19:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the idea and composition but that's all. There is really nothing sharp in this picture. --JuliusR (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I like the picture but I'm not sure it is encyclopedic. I just can't think of an article where to use it. Avjoska (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wikimedia Commons is a Media File Repository (not the same as wikipedia!), so it doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia article. Some of these pictures are used for other wiki projects like wikibooks. I would have supported this picture--as I quite like it--but it is too blurry in fullsize. --JalalV (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Snow RB.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2009 at 17:07:19
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Snow.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am rather surprised you're making this nomination. The quality just isn't there for such a common subject. I feel like I'm missing something as your nominations are usually of much higher quality. --Dori - Talk 17:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Must agree with Dori, as I am usually quite impressed with your nominations. I love snow, but this picture does not strike me in any meaningful way. --JalalV (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have seen much better looking snow ;). Yea, sorry, but it's only snow. kallerna 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thanks, Richard. You have encouraged me to propose one of my hoar frost pictures which I thought was not quite good enough compared with the sharpness of detail which you usually produce. Actually quite an original idea, to make a picture of snow in such an unusual way. But it is too much on the vertical centre line, and needs something on one side to put the stump on a rule-of-thirds location. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm going to go against the trend here, and support this. It's got a simplicity about it that just draws me in. It doesn't rely on epic panoramas, or or flashy light effects, and it's all the better for it, in my view. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only snow, too white.--Jagro (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ursus maritimus mother with cub.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2009 at 21:34:22
Polar bears a sow and a cub

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image is a digital picture of my old film print.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image was taken in the wild.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded by and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really like it, but the quality isn't even near. Sorry. kallerna 19:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition is OK. But as Kallerna said, it is not the best quality, in definition. But the guidelines say, "Symbolic meaning or relevance…. Opinion wars can begin here…. A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." So while it is not a good picture in every respect, I think it qualifies for support. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeQuality isn't there --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jagro (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Difficulty of getting this shot justifies it amply. Some people might not recognize that shooting a Polar bear is a bit different that shooting a dog Taollan82 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack opposers. -- Laitche (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with kallerna -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Nygårdstangen panorama sun.jpg, withdraw[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 00:11:09
Nygårdstangen in Bergen

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Aqwis - uploaded by Aqwis - nominated by Aqwis -- Aqwis (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Aqwis (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow. kallerna 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good Quality but boring Know Nothing (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Avjoska (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per Know Nothing --Pudelek (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is almost boring. Crapload (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Aqwis (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Polished slice of petrified wood.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 00:16:04
Polished slice of petrified wood

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seriously? Crapload (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good EV --Muhammad 19:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is just the sort of intriguing image I like to see. Makes a change from all those insects. ;} Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's beautiful. -- Laitche (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support , a beautiful piece of nature and great quality. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: It would be nice to have some information about the size of the piece on the image description page. --Siebengang (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Oh, sorry, now I found it. I will put the size into the image description as well. --Siebengang (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:ALVIN Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 02:29:54
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoThis is a panorama capturing the DSV ALVIN on the deck of the R/V Atlantis. I believe this image is unique and important because it capture not only the ALVIN but details related to operation such as the A-frame crane and steel weights. I acknowledge the the picture has some technical shortcomings, but I believe that the difficulty of obtaining such a picture make up for this (i.e. limited access to deck of R/V Atlantis, rocking of the boat while in operation, etc). Suggestions, please. created by Taollan82 - uploaded by Taollan82 - nominated by Taollan82 -- Taollan82 (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Taollan82 (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Messy composition, quality isn't that good. kallerna 19:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very ugly photo. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chaotic. --Karel (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not very easy to understand without extensive captioning. Too many important elements are cut off (such as the boat davit) and too many nonessential elements intervene. Durova (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ase o fuku onna2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 08:47:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:IFC HKSAR.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 09:20:37
Hong Kong International Finance Center

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Calvin yeung| - uploaded by Calvin yeung - nominated by Calvin yeung -- Calvin yeung (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This picture was digitally retouched to enhance the color of the sky and remove some dark lines at the bottom right corner. I believed the digital alteration is within the acceptable range for the nomination. The overall image still shows a true record of the buildings in Central Hong Kong.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info There are many buildings in the photo. The tallest is the Hong Kong International Finance Center phase II and at the bottom of the picture is the famous 3rd generation Hong Kong Star Ferry Pier at Central(HK). The Pier was removed in 2006. It is now replaced by a new pier.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ordinary snapshot, not very sharp, noisy --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. kallerna 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, hotpixels and sensor dust. Know Nothing (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is it my misimpression or there is barrel distortion in the tallest building? (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The sky made an excellent background! But some technical imperfections make me hesitant to vote for promotion. Crapload (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Panorama of Neris.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 11:00:12
A panoramic image of the Neris River in Vilnius, Lithuania, featuring the new administrative city center

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Juliux - uploaded by Juliux - nominated by Juliux -- Juliux (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Juliux (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks great as a thumb, but the quality isn't very good. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Close but no cigar. Quality is insufficient (sharpness, detail, CA). Lycaon (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry. kallerna 19:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think quality is fine considering the sheer pixel count of the panorama. Crapload (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've seen sharper pictures here, but atmosphere on this one is great. --Lošmi (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 

File:Gasteracantha mammosa spiderlings next to their eggs capsule.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 14:06:53
Spiderlings

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created ,-uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background ruins this image. Herr Kriss (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, blurred. kallerna 18:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See here for previous nomination. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Michael. The idea was that Hans will remember that he supported both image in the first time and will do the same now. I guess now he is more strict :) --Mbz1 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative 1, not featured[edit]

Spiderlings

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too low DOF. Herr Kriss (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurry. kallerna 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See here for previous nomination. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- This one humanizes spiders somehow. Belasd (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Flower reflections in raindrop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 17:08:21
Reflection

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoLots of wow for everyone I hope ;-) Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice picture, but barely more than 2Mpx does not impress me for FP. If it was 3Mpx+ I definitely would have supported this one! (Especially since the Canon EOS 400D is capable of over 10Mpx...) --JalalV (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Funny. Why expecting a higher image size when you was delivering only barely 3Mpx for your own last nomination on FPC ? Either way 3 or 2 Mpx is small but within the rules. Nobody was opposing your picture because of the small size, so you shouldn't, too. If your answer is it's because the eye was cropped then we can assume the same for Muhammad's picture as long nobody was asking him. Regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think 3Mpx is at the smaller end, but it is generally considered an acceptable replacement size for 5"x7" (decent consumer-sized) prints. I use this as a minimum baseline for any pictures that aren't web-only, especially as modern technology makes small sizes increasingly obselete. Anything less than this tends to get quite pixelated. JalalV (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I have provided the camera information. If this image was taken with a 3mp camera, would you oppose it? IMO, the camera should not be taken into consideration, that is why we have fixed criteria to judge from. This picture is a quick attempt at a focus stacking since the picture was taken after a heavy rainfall whilst it was still windy with the naturally present good light. (Thanks to advice given by Richard Bartz). With a focus stack, some parts of the resulting image need to be cropped out. --Muhammad 11:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • If it was 3Mpx from a 3Mpx camera, then I wouldn't have opposed it ;) Seriously though, the camera isn't as important as the fact that I couldn't see any logical reason for such a small size (other than significant downsampling or a very heavy crop). Since I know very little about focus stacking, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (although from what I can tell, it only requires quite minor cropping, with a process similar to HDR). I've changed my vote above to neutral, and I'll let the rest of Commons decide. --JalalV (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor composition. A way from this one of Luc Viatour -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this photo. It recalls me simplicity (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The central lower drop, close to centre of the image, is the best example of what you give as the subject of the picture (the unopened tiger lily shown in the droplets). Try again, if the droplets are available daily, with that one droplet as the main feature, centred at rule of thirds, lower left, and showing enough of the stalk and any other droplets to put the droplet in context. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Avjoska (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I was going to oppose, but then I saw this one. I think that yours is better. kallerna 12:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Twdragon (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per previous --Pom² (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:CapeTownPanoramaFromTableMountain.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 17:39:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Fcatarinella - uploaded by Fcatarinella - nominated by Tm -- Tm (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tm (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The ocean looks bit weird... But still I'll support. kallerna 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beau travail. -- Acarpentier 12:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Interesting, but bad quality. Could you retake it with a polaization filter or UV-Haze-filter? The whites seem to be a bit blown out too. --SvonHalenbach (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, a polarizer will not work for a stiched panorama and I don't think this image will really gain from a UV filter. --Siebengang (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Avjoska (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose An unrealistic and somewhat distorted representation of a scene I am very familiar with Maciej (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, no wow. --Karel (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it and I think the quality is very good. Just the cable car wires in the lower left corner... --Siebengang (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I didn't fall of my chair, sorry --Pom² (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:ArcHere.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 19:30:34
Arc Héré at night

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Tiago Fioreze - uploaded by Tiago Fioreze - nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too dark! Vanjagenije (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is it tilted? ... quite impressive. kallerna 15:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It is not tilted. I believe that the angle I took this photo may give you this wrong impression. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Doesnt stand up to current featured nightshots (Know Nothing (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How do current night shots stand up? I think your comment is very subjective. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not very sharp and in need of perspective correction --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pampas-panoramica.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 02:46:16
Panorámica de la ciudad de Pampas. Overview of the city of Pampas.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Digary - uploaded by Digary - nominated by Digary -- Digary Nuvola Peru flag.svg ¿Yanapa?, ¿Tapuna?, ¿kutichiku?... 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Panorámica de la ciudad de Pampas. Overview of the city of Pampas.Digary Nuvola Peru flag.svg ¿Yanapa?, ¿Tapuna?, ¿kutichiku?... 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Digary Nuvola Peru flag.svg ¿Yanapa?, ¿Tapuna?, ¿kutichiku?... 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You used two images. The right image is lighter than the left image. In the middle of the panorama is a vertical line. Some clouds may be too white. Try to make a better panorama without the line, with darker clouds and the same darker brightness in both images.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality. Some odd black stripe on the right corner. kallerna 15:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad quality Know Nothing (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Low resolution, sloppy stitching (very obvious seams. I suggest you look into hugin+enblend!). On a side note: if your signature is longer than your contributions something is off... --Dschwen (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Andean boys.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 03:21:12
Niños de los Andes. Andean boys.

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 it is noisy, unsharp, and has horrible lighting. 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.

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:折鶴 WUXGA.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 12:34:41
Cranes made by Origami (Washi paper).

No wow is the misnomer of 2008 :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Subtle beauty --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Avjoska (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Simple but impressive. kallerna 12:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per other supporters --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no wow, cause of the boring composition, lighting and perspective --Simonizer (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I feel those swans have potential, but the current boring setting does them no favours. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Those are not swans, but cranes. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral What a pity that the ground is not white… Diti the penguin 11:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting is not so good - sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as the author :) -- Laitche (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Camponotus flavomarginatus ant.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 13:10:36
Ant

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Commons does not have many FPs of ants. This picture has good lighting and quality and is identified to species level. The ant was quite small and the picture had to be cropped. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 13:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad 13:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose One of the legs isn't focused. kallerna 15:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The ant is small and at this high level of magnification, getting everything in focus is impossible with a live, moving subject, since further decrease in the aperture will lead to lack of sharpness and focus stacking is not an option. Muhammad 15:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the background colouring spoils it for me. You have done well with the level of magnification required, and I can appreciate that this may be worth trying again as a difficult subject which the guidlines allow for incousion in spite of poorer quality of photo. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For all of the reasons the photographer listed. Rarity and difficulty of identification increases the impressiveness. -- carol (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • please stop voting when it's closed --Pom² (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Jim Root Mayhem.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 18:39:50
Guitarist James Root

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by bill from jersey city - uploaded by Blackngold29 - nominated by Rezter -- Rezter (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Rezter (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the light flare on the right spoils the overall composition and contrast, and I have seen better of this style by my son. Don't get too discouraged, and keep trying. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Avjoska (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. kallerna 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Vitrail cathédrale Saint-Étienne,Toulouse.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 20:42:26
Stained glass, cathedrale Saint-Étienne (Toulouse, France)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoStained glass, cathedrale Saint-Étienne (Toulouse, France), created by Pom² - uploaded by Pom² - nominated by Pom² -- Pom² (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pom² (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enthusiastically. A spectacular 42.3M pixel, and a clear view of another difficult subject. Did you do a composite of several smaller pictures? The detail on some of the faces is as if you had the live people in front of you. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Thx :) There is ~20 stitched images, original is more than 100mp, but I down-sampled it because top of stained glass is 10m / 15m above the ground, and wasn't really sharp (and there is no other way than shoot it from the ground, quite close) --Pom² (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Hard work, much care, a good ladder and tripod! -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent image! Vanjagenije (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JalalV (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image, good details...--Digary Nuvola Peru flag.svg ¿Yanapa?, ¿Tapuna?, ¿kutichiku?... 02:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous Dcrjsr (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kudos for the large size. Good quality with accompanying wow. Lycaon (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  08:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yep. kallerna 12:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - WOW --Pudelek (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great shot! (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Neat, but not enough wow, IMO. Crapload (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not enough wow? What do you want, the Lord Jesus Christ to appear and give it His endorsement? An image of the Blessed Virgin in the lower left corner? You just can't please some people. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very well made - Peripitus (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ala z talk 07:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A great photo with sharp, clear and vivid colours. The exposure setting is just right. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Very high quality work! --Siebengang (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Hoar frost 01.jpg , not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 22:53:47
Hoar frost on grass

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Robert of Ramsor - uploaded by Robert of Ramsor - nominated by Robert of Ramsor I did not think this was that good, but I am grateful to Richard for his Snow picture for giving me the encouragement. At least you can see the shapes of the ice crystals if you zoom in. (And if you don't like the colour fringes on the edges of the picture, please complain to FujiFilm - they made the lens.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice!--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I already complained to FujiFilm :). It's ok, but not FP. kallerna 12:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, sharpness, color fringes don't make it a FP -- Siebengang 14:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I can't help the colour fringes as they are characteristic of the Fujifilm lens. Ditto some aspects of the sharpness. It looks like Kallerna has had the same complaint. I can't afford to think of replacing my camera for perhaps 5 years. (Having only just got it.) But there is perhaps the option of adding on a purely factual basis some examples of the colour fringes caused by the lens defects on the FinePix s5800 article. It is only a stub at the moment, and will be greatly improved by illustrations of user's experience. In defence of this horafrost example, I would say that, in spite of the limitations of the lens, the central area does show detailed ice crystal structure which is not as visible on some of the other hoarfrost images on this page. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Colour fringes are not characteristic for Fujifilm lenses only. Many, especially zoom lenses fail on that matter. So, don't blame your new camera! In some cases, it is possible to correct the fringes 'manually' with Photoshop by selecting the blue or purple areas one by one and reducing their saturation. But this seems difficult to do here. -- MJJR (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I've been looking at some others on review sites, and trying a few test photos. One conclusion is that review sites tend not to give examples of the worst case, which is high contrast printed page, black on white, taken with options like the "double macro" setting as this was. But I have a fair test picture with no noticeable fringes by selecting subject, background, and aperture, to minimise contrast etc. Also, I can get negligible fringing on other subjects by selecting mid-range focal lengths instead of extreme telephoto or wide-angle, and manually setting small aperture. Which then means using a tripod because of the longer exposure time, or noise on high ISO setting. We are all up against this, and it is a part of learning not to depend on "snap-shot" mode - the Auto setting on the digital camera. It rarely gets it right first time. But it does mean that you get something where you may have missed the picture altogether. I have said this to remind those who may be new here. Are there any photo processing software packages which, like Audacity for sound, are freely available? -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not enough DoF. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Keep frozen orange juice cans with ice crystals.jpg, withdraw[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 00:20:25
Ice crystals at orange juice

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created ,uploaded by and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Everybody takes pictures of ice and snow and I got jealous because there's neither ice nor snow, where I live, so here's an image that was taken in a local grocery store. :)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- seems that it is only a part of a picture. Avjoska (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like it. Quality isn't that good and the composition - well, it's just ice. I can open my door and see much better looking snow and ice. Sry. kallerna 12:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
That's right. Anybody could open a door and see the ice and snow outside. Very few will bother to take a look and try to see the beautiful ice crystals in unusual places. I feel sorry for you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg 

  • I liked it. it was somehow witty. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Icicles Partnachklamm rb.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 02:04:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Icicles @ Partnachklamm
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For some reason, the picture looks bit odd on fullsize. Composition is ok, but not that good. This is much better. kallerna 12:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The noise in the darker parts of the ice is a shame, but it is nonetheless a good picture. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Kallerna - composition. --Karel (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The above image is a much better shot. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Unbalanced composition, no object for scale. The other one is much better. --Siebengang (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Partnachklamm rb.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 02:38:52
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Partnachklamm, Garmisch Partenkirchen, Germany.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice lighting, sharpness, composition, feel of place - and geocoded. Dcrjsr (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok. kallerna 12:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice. --Dschwen (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful --ianaré (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a magical scene. I half expect the cast of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe to walk around the corner. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It recalls me a movie scenario :) (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Twdragon (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral CA in the lower right corner. -- Laitche (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Nice! Much better than the second one. --Siebengang (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Seasquirt.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 10:25:12
Nembrotha lineolata

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoNudibranch (Nembrotha lineolata) laying an egg spiral on a sea squirt (Polycarpa aurata) near Metinaro, East Timor. Created by Nick Hobgood - uploaded and nominated by Lycaon (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is at least decent, if you consire that is taken under the surface. kallerna 12:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  21:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support some noise on left side, but otherwise great --Ianaré 23:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Spiral egg! -- Belasd (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good Ev and quality --Muhammad 04:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bizarre. --Javier ME (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Twdragon (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great colors! (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colours. -- Laitche (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great pic...eye catchy colors -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Diti the penguin 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Very interesting and good quality. --Siebengang (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --D-Kuru (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A very nice surprise! Thanks. Nick Nhobgood (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Eiskristall Pfosten 2.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 11:35:43
hoar frost

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea, but the sharpness, or lack of it, on full zoom is dissapointing. It is fuzzy in the middle of the frost area, which is not compensated for by the sharp edge. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Picture with wow effect.--Jagro (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Twdragon (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Definetly a "wow"-picture.--HouseGhostDiscussion 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Wow -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Close, but no cigar. kallerna 13:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Chickens in market.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 16:25:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Chickens in market in Mazatlán, Sinaloa, México -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some might find the composition messy, but I like it, finding it has a real life feeling. Mmm I'm hungry. --Muhammad 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Funny. Maybe you could crop a few pixels of the left (the white bucket?). Lycaon (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Cropped, uploaded new version, thanks for the comment. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
You should stick to the extraordinary capture of the ordinary. You're good at that. Lycaon (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hmmm chicken. --Homer Simpson (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine composition. Crop would be nice. kallerna 19:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good picture, but nothing special for me. Diti the penguin 20:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --TheWB (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral would like to see elbow and bucket cropped out. --ianaré (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support better now --ianaré (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ordinary subject, ordinary capture. Crapload (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very original. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The plastic bag distracts from the composition and would have been easy to remove. Durova (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Albertus teolog (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 16:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Durova about the plastic bag, but it it doesn't detract from the composition enough for me not to Symbol support vote.svg Support. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Crazywell cross 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 16:49:20
Crazywell cross

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Tetanocera sp rb.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 18:41:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Marsh fly Sciomyzidae - (Tetanocera cf. ferruginea)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Magnificent! How you manage to keep the leaf and fly steady is a mystery --Muhammad 18:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The EXIF date and the date provided are different ;) --Muhammad 18:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Am I the only one noticing the noise and lack of detail? You can do (you have done) much better -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a drawback from a Canon 40D feature which is called High Tone Priority . It causes slight noise in darker areas but despite I dont want to go without it because i paid a lot of money for that. :-)) --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
But couldn't you just shoot with RAW instead of JPEG? Then you'd have much more control over it! Diliff (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Detail is fine with me... I don´t see noise, DOF according to focal length and macro. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent shot! (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noise dont bother me. Great work --Simonizer (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Alvegaspar --ianaré (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentSlight noise (fine grain) is better than smeared up areas through denoising because information isn't lost. I ensure that this kind of noise isn't visible when doing a 150 DPI photoprint thereof. (I would agree on color noise because it's harsher) --Richard Bartz(talk) 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I have the same camera, and I've noticed it too ... what's strange is that it's very inconsistant and hard to predict (for me anyway). Your other images don't usually suffer from this. --ianaré (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Not Richard's most stunning work (a high bar to jump) but a stunning enough work - Peripitus (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --D-Kuru (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice.(^^)/ -- Laitche (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but it looks noisy even on thumbnails. kallerna 13:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Manzushir Khiid 149194574 c0a3034dae o.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 10:56:07
Manzushir Monastery in Mongolia

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by yeowatzup - uploaded by Gryffindor - nominated by Gryffindor -- Gryffindor (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gryffindor (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is somewhat interesting, but overall, the composition is unclear. Crapload (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral what is depicted ?? What is its significance ? GerardM (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well it's a door of the gate to the temple. Depicted is the bronze handle in the traditional style as a lion or beast. A blue prayer shawl (khata) is tied around it, which is tradition in Mongolia. In the background the temple itself can be seen. I think it's a lovely image. Gryffindor (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great composition and colors, quality good --ianaré (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks like something you'd find on the front a travel brochure. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It seems to tell a story. -- Belasd (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition doesn't do it for me. The door edge is too close to the center of the image. --Dori - Talk 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lack of sharpness and no wow factor - Man On Mission (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. kallerna 13:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special. --Karel (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Детали волновых передач.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 12:23:27
Elastic wheels of the straight-wave gearings

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Twdragon (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Twdragon (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Need an understandable description first for your details of gear reductors. Lycaon (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Understandable description proposed --Twdragon (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Спасибо, now I understand. I have added a link on the English description. Regretfully I can't support because the parts don't show the working of the gearing. Lycaon (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It is very difficult to demonstrate work of such sophisticated mechanism on a static photograph. This photograph carries only aesthetic functions, we just use it for presentation purposes during lectures. --Twdragon (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThe parts are well arranged for the "still life" picture. You can see the machining marks (and rust) on the parts. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Please write down the reason of your opposition --Twdragon (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Plumeria (Frangipani).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 14:16:52
Plumeria (Frangipani) flowers

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Maciej - uploaded by Maciej - nominated by Maciej -- Maciej (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Maciej (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, it's too noisy. kallerna 14:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I am puzzled by the noise comment. Possibly it is the texture of the leaves and petals that you are seeing? Maciej (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like your composition for this photo, but it is rather dimmed. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC))
    • Thanks - it is slightly 'dim' because thats how it is, the flowers of this particular species avoid the sunlight and grow within the foliage of the tree. Their purpose is to attract moths at night. --Maciej (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jagro (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Twdragon (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Rather poor quality (lots of artefacts, oversaturated/exposed highlights) Dim light can avoided as Plumeria rubra will flower profusely and not only in shaded places or shaded by the leaves. Lycaon (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentAgree with comment about the light. Fair quality, but I think you could improve it with a retake (assuming that this is in your garden and not in some place with expensive entry charges). But I note your point about that being how it is (reply to "dim"). Could you get any sunlight on it, even by use of a white sheet to reflect som extra light? Also, smaller aperture will sharpen it. However some flowers (like large white lillies) naturally have non-sharp edges to their petals. I don't agree about the "noise" comment, though. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Eye-catching. --Dori - Talk 03:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is good, but quality is bad (oversharpened noise?) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct colors and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Indeed quite some noise on the flowers and on the leaves. Estrilda (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Yyterin lietteet-Duckboards.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 14:52:46
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna kallerna 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing outstanding, sorry! (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question On the lower left side there are a lot of chromatic aberrations (pink and blue). Can I fix that for you and reupload the image ? (Adobe Lightroom can fix that with 2 clicks) --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Of course, if you can do it. It's PD anyway. Thanks for your effort. kallerna 17:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing catches my attention. Foreground (left) tree and branches out of focus. But I don't see the chromatic aberrations. (Maciej (talk) 20:399, 29 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful! Roquai (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSorry, it is well composed and so on, but I agree with Maciej about nothing catching my attention. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Caracol Falls.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 19:49:57
Caracol falls, near Canela, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a good composition in 3D as well as 2D. Dcrjsr (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Maciej (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 10:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colours and composition. Everything is in focus and there is no fuzziness anywhere. A perfect photo. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Image is great, but 100% quality is quite strange, especially in bottom left trees --Pom² (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood curtain of water in the falls, and generally good scene. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Splish splash --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! --Estrilda (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Shoki2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 20:43:41
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Okumura Masanobu - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Shoki.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive ! --Muhammad 14:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Econt (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Picture of half a men, really nice, but why nomination for FP? --Karel (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Smalltalk for working out a nomination description/info is moved to here --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info "Shōki zu" (Shōki striding), c. 1741-1751. The figure from Taoist mythology known as Shōki in Japan (Zhong Kui in China), was a slayer of demons. Published in tall and narrow pillar print dimensions. The artist Okumura Masanobu was a formative figure in ukiyo-e printmaking. Durova (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --GerardM (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Because we do not have anything representative of this style yet.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great ! --ianaré (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dark and gloomy, EV not withstanding. Lycaon (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Late vote, oops. Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:AllianzArena.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 20:46:31
Allianz Arena lighting up in blue.

  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Do you know why it's blue ? By the way "Welcome to Munich" (my town), afterwards ;-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The subject and its color are attractive, but the composition overall is not. Crapload (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Contrast, composition, purple fringing --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Skottehytta-070820.jpg, not featured[edit]

Spitsbergen - polar base

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Upior polnocy - uploaded by Upior polnocy - nominated by Przykuta --Przykuta (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Przykuta (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The atmosphere is very impressive, it attracts me somehow but I'm afraid that there's not much of the surroundings and it looks a bit cramped. As a pano or more wide-angled (with some more mountains and boundless expanse) it would be a burner. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Could you add the location? kallerna 12:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background is beautiful with the mountains but the building looks old and somewhat dilapidated. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That being the entire point of the photograph... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    •  ??? --ianaré (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, it wouldn't be such a great photo if it was an average suburban office block, would it? The dilapidation of the house adds depth and emotion to the image. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Symbol support vote.svg Support In other words, an antiquity. --Ayacop (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Richard Bartz. kallerna 12:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I tended more to support instead of oppose :-)) --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to composition. The mountain top is jutting over the roof and looking like it's part of it. I don't know if it's possible, but from a higher vantage point (ladder, car roof?) it would have been great. --Dori - Talk 03:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral: I like the picture, but I think that it would have been possible to take a much better photo of this subject, landscape, light and mood (less interference of cabin and background, more focus on how the cabin is situated in the landscape). --Siebengang (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Бухта Озерко, губа Бол. Мотка.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 09:31:10
Rybachiy Peninsula

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sergey Gruzdev, uploaded, and nominated by Insider --Insider (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Insider (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for lack of sharpness Andreas 06 (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This place was once part of Finland. Well, nice picture and composition, but the quality is bad. kallerna 14:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy and lack of sharpness - Man On Mission (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral To much HDR in this picture :) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack opposers, and overprocessed. --Dori - Talk 22:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Dikkop - Burhinus capensis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 08:10:08
Dikkop head

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Maciej - uploaded by Maciej - nominated by Maciej -- Maciej (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Maciej (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Color vibration is lacking --Twdragon (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise --ianaré (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As other opposers. kallerna 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Corect details and DoF. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- ist a nice close shoot. But the composition and color of the picture aren't *featured* style. I opend the pic in a edit-program and color seemd to be allot better,... Must be a color profile thing,... The reflection in the bird eye looks like a tent. Is it one? Amada44 (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    • No, not a tent. Probably the side of my house, taken from bedroom window Maciej (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

File:St Vitus Cathedral - Stained glass (retouch).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 16:25:28
Part of stained glass windows in St. Vitus Cathedral, Prague

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Milo Manara Lodz 2008.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 20:22:27
Milo Manara

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Jaron11 - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Fuzzy, with slightly overblown highlights and an unappealing background.JohnIngraham (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose &ndash The person in the background just ruins it for me. – Jerryteps 07:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is overexposed Crapload (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Not enough reason for FPX -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: I think it is overexposed, and if I was the guy, I would not like to have this rather unfavourable picture of mine as a featured picture. --Siebengang (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral--Kuvaly (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Drip torch firing.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2009 at 01:08:50
Using a drip torch

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Larus delawarensis flight 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2009 at 08:36:17
Larus delawarensis in flight

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Larus delawarensis in flight : created, uploaded, and nominated by ianaré (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! kallerna 12:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice shot! I like the fact that the natural environment is shown as well (50mm is a rather unusual focal length for bird flight shots). Unfortunately the seagull's posture (especially the feet) is not the normal "flight position" (compare e.g. Image:Larus_canus_in_flight.jpg), which decreases the usefulness of the image somewhat. Therefore my neutral vote. --Siebengang (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment you're right, it was not in fast horizontal flight (like this one here File:Larus_delawarensis_flight_3.jpg), rather it was hovering in moderate headwind. I changed the description page to reflect this. --ianaré (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough. I'm guessing the scene is fairly repeatable. That's what gulls do. --Dori - Talk 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree, not sharp enough. (Yay! First edit of the year! Only edit for the day. Bit bored, so a took a visit :) ) --Mr. Mario (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose good picture, but noisy background. - Man On Mission (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I guess this photo was the best the photographer could manage to get. Diti the penguin 18:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks great to me. --Lošmi (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Posterization in background and not sharp enough. -- Laitche (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A VI rather than a FP nomination. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It looks very well.--Jagro (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --norro 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Overall composition. Crapload (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) (Too late --D-Kuru (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. D-Kuru (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

File:DDG59lights.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2009 at 06:24:17
USS Russell (DDDG-59) displaying Holiday lights.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mass Communication Specialist James E. Foehl (US Navy) - uploaded by Durin - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Diti the penguin 10:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really cool! (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC))
    • There are about 40 more great military pictures I've found, I'm planning on nominating them over the coming months. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, doesn't look great as a thumbnail, but great in large resolutions. --Aqwis (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Photo is ok, but the sky is bit noisy. kallerna 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cool slow-shutter capture. The ship is poorly lit and overall the scene is not very appealing. Crapload (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition could be much more balanced and the zoom-lights effect is counterproductive for the image subject: First thought might be "explosion?" then "why are they shooting in a harbor?" then "oh, it is just the photographer playing. Relax...". --Siebengang (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's very nice play. --Lošmi (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Siebengang. Lycaon (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- looks great! Amada44 (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sophus Bie (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

File:View of Cluj.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2009 at 14:58:22
A beautiful view of Cluj, Romania

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Cascata caracol2.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 09:49:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Mywood (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Gluehlampe 01 KMJ.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2009 at 00:21:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 3 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Mywood (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Gavin Hamilton - Coriolanus Act V, Scene III.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2009 at 09:54:25
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Gavin Hamilton - uploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Act V, Scene III of Shakespeare's Coriolanus.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karel (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dark and gloomy. Lycaon (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You are welcome to readjust the levels. This seemed right to me, but it shouldn't be too hard to get a different mix. I've uploaded my final version as a PNG here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Miomantis paykullii Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2009 at 12:13:40
Miomantis paykullii

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 13:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The composition is lovely. I don't want to play the wise guy, but isn't the mantis not a tad to overexposed and cold balanced, because normally it's green instead of mintish-white (glow-in-the-dark impression) which I think is a bit misleading for encyclopedical use. For photo art it may be working well. When turning the white balance to default it appears green, again but I agree that it's not banging that much as with the glow in the dark efx. EV or Photoart ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
müsste nur noch der Sensorfleck aus dem Flügel, dann gäbe es ein Pro für Richard Barz edit --Böhringer (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Bin mir nicht sicher ob ich den Edit nominieren soll. Du kannst das aber gerne machen, die Datei liegt noch auf meinem Server --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
C'est un spécimen jeune. Sa couleur était plus ou moins comme cela. Cela change évidement suivant que le ciel est couvert (plus froid) ou plein soleil (plus blanc) ou en fin de journée au soleil (plus chaud). Sorry to reply in French, but I am unable to explain reasoning in English --Luc Viatour (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Oui, d'accord. Si c'est une spécimen nouvelle, je ne pouvrais trouver des references. Pourtant une image très belle! Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Peux-tu eliminer la macule du capteur, s'il te plais? Comme Böhringer a dit plus haut. --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Voilà c'est corrigé --Luc Viatour (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning picture, as usual. Diti the penguin 17:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very sharp photo and a good composition. I think although that the insect thorax seems to exhibit a flared highlight. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
  • 鮮やかな色彩と奇抜ながらも調和のとれた構図を Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  21:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Man On Mission (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support danke --Böhringer (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Incredibly sharp, lots of wow, amazing photography that we (as users of commons) should be proud to have as a featured picture. --Anonymous101 talk 17:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leoboudv (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 09:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent shot. --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Estrilda (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no question --Simonizer (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Very nice! I like how the simple composition works together with the subject. I would like Richard's edit even more. --Siebengang (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Mexican curious 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2009 at 15:56:55
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really nice. A photo with a lot of details (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support colorful! - Man On Mission (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tight Doctor Doom --12:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As previous supporters. --Lošmi (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 16:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What's up with the EXIF data? --Dori - Talk 00:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know, what's up with it? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tomás is using an old lens without exif throughput. Lycaon (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Ah OK, thanks. --Dori - Talk 13:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lycaon is correct. Everything else registers in the EXIF data. The lens is a Carl Zeiss Planar T f1.4 manual focus lens. There are some jewels out there in the form of older manual focus lenses that produce beautiful results. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice colours --ianaré (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Bright, interesting and very high quality. Bravo! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one is, IMO, the best of the two current noms. Nice colours. Lycaon (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:North Point Sunrise 20090201 0622.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2009 at 00:29:06
Sunrise over Lake Michigan

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 00:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sunrise over Lake Michigan, in North Point Park, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. --Dori - Talk 00:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As proscribed sunrises or sunsets are, this one looks still fantastic --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One of a kind --Muhammad 05:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice - Man On Mission (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 16:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 09:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice colours --Böhringer (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for pillar--Mbz1 (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good--Kuvaly (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Estrilda (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leoboudv (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll be the first to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose here: The colors are very nice, but for me the composition is lacking something special (e.g. interesting foreground, strong and meaningful silhouettes, more interestingly shaped clouds...). Unfortunately the diagonal pattern of the clouds make the image somehow unbalanced. I know, sunrises/sunsets are pleasing and fun to photograph, but there are much better ones on Commons (File:Sunset_may_2006_panorama.jpg, File:Reflected_sunset.jpg). --Siebengang (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I know sunrises and sunsets look pretty similar, but both of your examples are sunsets. Indeed there are few quality sunrises on Commons. I believe I have the only FP one, and that one is not so much about the sunrise as the silhouettes. Note that I do have one with better clouds from that same shoot, but the colors aren't as good. I wish people would get up a bit early and take some better sunrise shots :) --Dori - Talk 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The other sunrise
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Wow, File:North Point Sunrise 20090201 1696.jpg has much more potential! It just looks a tiny bit too dark, but that could easily be fixed. Want to nominate it? --Siebengang (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What Siebengang said. Crapload (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely fantastic! --AM (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
sorry, too late.-)--Mywood (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ogata Gekko - Ryu sho ten.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2009 at 01:45:44
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:ZuidasAmsterdamNederland.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2009 at 18:27:27
An abstract view of office buildings in the Zuidas district of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

How about: Very sharp, almost no noise, great DOF, no CA and a pretty good composition. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
That's true. But if I'll take a technically perfect photo from some usual thing, like from tissue, will it be FP? kallerna 20:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I somehow agree with kallerna. Even though the photo was definitely well taken, the composition does not catch much attention. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically perfect, composition OK, but no wow factor. Sorry. --Berru (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral--Kuvaly (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Kallerna, and just to make a point, not be taken personally, but rather as an illustration of critique and analogy... A technically perfect anything does not make it special necessarily... Like we say in spanish "a flower without aroma". It may be beautiful, but the aroma... ahhh that's what flowers are about! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a great analogy Tomas, and fits this picture perfectly. It'll find a great home in Quality Images, but I have to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it here. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Tulipas.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2009 at 18:32:55
Sample of tulips found in the Keukenhof park in Lisse, The Netherlands.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created , uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question There's also other flowers? Species? kallerna 20:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't fully understand what you mean with these questions. If you are referring to the Keukenhof park, the answer is: yes, there are other flowers of different families such as Orchids. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps kallerna means: what is the species of the yellow flowers in the foreground?--Commander Keane (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't really know what specie the yellow flowers belong to. I don't have any background on Botany. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Tulips - these are all tulips. Rmhermen (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A lovely picture, but it seems rather fuzzy, especially around the edges of the yellow flowers. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the white balance is a bit out. The picture looks yellowish to me. Amada44 (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Sarcastic ShockwaveLover. --Karel (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Tim Berners-Lee CP.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 02:49:47
Tim Berners-Lee at Campus Party Brasil, 2009

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:MetLIfe GC.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 05:40:55
MetLife Building in NYC

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Jnn13 (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jnn13 (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The shot cuts off part of the sign, and part of the building. Very sharp though, and the quality is excellent. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition could be better. kallerna 13:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Comopsition, distorted lines. --Karel (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Tulips on Park Ave edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 06:03:37
Tulips on Park Ave in NYC. Cropped small piece of background off the top.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Jnn13 (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jnn13 (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- colorful picture but lack of sharpness - Man On Mission (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Hmm, try looking at center yellow tulip at 100%. Shallow depth of field is deliberate here because it gives a relatively small patch of tulips a little more depth.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of compositional deficits: I think the uniformity of the flower pattern is the important point of the image, but then the tulip in the lower right and the soil patches are disturbing. --Siebengang (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mostly because of the composition. kallerna 23:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Roasted chickens.jpg, Not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2009 at 00:30:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Uhm yeah, meanwhile food photography is very rare but roast chickens with overblown highlights and soberly composition ? Hmm, no. --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, if it is not to your liking it is ok, but overblown highlights? No my friend, they are called "specular highlights" in photography, caused by the quality of the surfaces that sometimes act as mirrors, such as chrome, water and other shiny surfaces. Furthermore, specular highlights are acceptable in photography. In this particular case they are neither exesive nor intrusive. The visual elements here have to do with color, texture, and yes, the sparkle. But like I said, if you no likey, you no likey. That's ok. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I stick to my opinion. The highlights are eroded 2 much. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like roasted chicken very much :P The photo is great in my opinion! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Richard Bartz. Could be quality-image. kallerna 13:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral--Kuvaly (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Estrilda (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's kind of cramped, I would like it better if it were zoomed out to show more of the mechanics like the wheel on the right. I might change my mind and support it later, it's good image. --IG-64 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. --Jagro (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: The subject is kind of interesting, but I think the photograph does not live up to it (composition, oversaturation). Compared to many other FPs, the photographic quality is rather low. --Siebengang (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While tihs picture does make me hungry, it's also too dark. Sophus Bie (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Richard Bartz, mainly composition. --Karel (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral =>  Not featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Guadalajara-01.jpg, Not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 00:56:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by tetrabrain - uploaded and nominated by Jpablo cad (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jpablo cad (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose formerly FPX - the image does not meet size requirements. MER-C 01:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)}}

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Also, one of the steeples is cut off, and the right hand side is blotchy and fuzzy. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:CVN-69-SPIE-training.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 09:10:06
CVN-69 SPIE training

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Miguel Angel Contreras - uploaded by Durin - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low quality navy pic with heavy CA. Lycaon (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's odd, I use it as the desktop on my newly adjusted 24 inch LCD, and I can honestly say I haven't noticed any chromatic abberation. Could you point it out? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • On the nose and on the stern. On some airplanes wings near the nose but not really salient --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Interesting! I think the quality is ok and I would not consider this as "heavy CA". --Siebengang (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wow! I can't support because of the quality (focus is on helmet) and because of that tire. kallerna 14:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Usually I'm not too enthousiasdtic about all these U.S. military pix, buit this one gives me acute vertigo just by looking at it! -- MartinD (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- Leon7 (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 09:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I took my time supporting this picture. Mixed feelngs. I support it because it is an informative image taken from a rare point of view. It shows the power packed on a carrier, true military might... Perhaps some may not agree with the topic, but that is besides the point, power is power, and the image conveys it. On the technical side, I would wipe out the antenna at the right of the man, for it seems to connect the helicopter to the ship and it is a dsitracting element. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info That's not an antenna...the the I in SPIE stands for 'Insertion', and the white line is a rope. If you look closely, you can see a man rappelling down to the ship. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Have to agree with MartinD. This one is impressive. --norro 14:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow!!! --Karel (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:CVN-69-SPIE-training.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 09:10:06
CVN-69 SPIE training

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Miguel Angel Contreras - uploaded by Durin - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low quality navy pic with heavy CA. Lycaon (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's odd, I use it as the desktop on my newly adjusted 24 inch LCD, and I can honestly say I haven't noticed any chromatic abberation. Could you point it out? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • On the nose and on the stern. On some airplanes wings near the nose but not really salient --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Interesting! I think the quality is ok and I would not consider this as "heavy CA". --Siebengang (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wow! I can't support because of the quality (focus is on helmet) and because of that tire. kallerna 14:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Usually I'm not too enthousiasdtic about all these U.S. military pix, buit this one gives me acute vertigo just by looking at it! -- MartinD (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- Leon7 (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 09:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I took my time supporting this picture. Mixed feelngs. I support it because it is an informative image taken from a rare point of view. It shows the power packed on a carrier, true military might... Perhaps some may not agree with the topic, but that is besides the point, power is power, and the image conveys it. On the technical side, I would wipe out the antenna at the right of the man, for it seems to connect the helicopter to the ship and it is a dsitracting element. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info That's not an antenna...the the I in SPIE stands for 'Insertion', and the white line is a rope. If you look closely, you can see a man rappelling down to the ship. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Have to agree with MartinD. This one is impressive. --norro 14:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow!!! --Karel (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Lune1 (by).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 19:30:06
Great photo of the gibbous moon

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The largest image sizes for Nikon Coolpix P5000 is 3648 x 2736 (10MP), why your image is 4,758 × 5,929 pixels ?   ■ MMXXtalk  09:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think that, for balance, it really needs enough space to the left to represent the rest of the moon's disc, shrouded in darkness. Excellent work otherwise, but the layout just looks wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)